Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Alick Laidlaw Buchanan-Smith, esquire, Member for Kincardine and Deeside; of George James Buckley, esquire, Member for Hemsworth; and of James Richard Holt, esquire, Member for Langbaurgh, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. and hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Commuters (London)

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from commuters about the difficulties of travelling into London.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I receive a large amount of correspondence on a variety of issues from commuters who travel into London.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend had an enjoyable and active recess. Does he

sympathise with those in my constituency and elsewhere in the south-east who spend a great deal of time each day trying to get into and out of London and who face blocked roads and the M25 bulging at the seams?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the management of British Rail yet another kick in the pants, in the hope that it will try to overcome the problems faced by constituents who commute, such as cancellations, overcrowding, delays, lack of information and uninterest-ed staff? Perhaps, then, more of the 58 per cent. of people——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a rather long supplementary.

Mr. Taylor: It has been a very long journey for some of my constituents, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that British Rail will get its act together and make my constituents a great deal happier in their daily journeys into and out of London.

Mr. Rifkind: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks. We must recognise that life is extremely difficult for commuters. The Government are seeking to do what they can to ease the position, both through the major improvements to the M25 that we have announced and through the heaviest investment programme that Network SouthEast has enjoyed for 30 years. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are other ways, which do not involve the use of resources, in which the service to the travelling public can be substantially improved.

Mr. Fearn: The Secretary of State will know that the inquiry into the Clapham rail crash in 1988 recommended that there should be no more than 10 per cent. more passengers than there are seats. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Network SouthEast continually breaches that recommendation? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do about that, in view of the safety considerations?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, safety is one of the most important considerations for British Rail and it is involved in major investment to improve safety levels both on Network SouthEast lines and lines


throughout the country. Currently, a large number of passenger vehicles and other forms of rolling stock are being manufactured and they will come into service with Network SouthEast. That will make an important contribution towards solving the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that where there has been new investment, the service is acceptable, but that where new investment is still awaited, the service is often wholly unacceptable? Will he assure us that the Treasury's external financing limit will not restrain BR from pressing forward with its investment programme?

Mr. Rifkind: The level of the external financing limit is bound to have some effect—it all depends what level is set. The programme on which British Rail has already embarked is massive and certainly the largest since before the days of Dr. Beeching. On Network SouthEast alone, more than 800 passenger coaches and other rolling stock are with the manufacturers and when they come into operation over the next two years they will have a dramatic impact on the quality of life for the travelling public.

Ms. Walley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the annual report of the Transport Users Consultative Committee published last week showed that the number of serious complaints has doubled? Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement last week about the channel tunnel and the extra strain that it will place on Network SouthEast, will he tell the House whether it is his intention to bring some public service obligation investment to that line?

Mr. Rifkind: PSO grant for Network SouthEast and for other services in receipt of PSO has been substantially increased and was increased during the financial year as part of the £400 million additional package that I announced some time ago. Although the Transport Users Consultative Committee referred, quite properly, to the level of complaints, it also acknowledged that the level of investment permitted by the Government is higher than it has been for generations.

Manchester Airport

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about manning levels at Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic mentioned manning levels in an Adjournment debate that was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) in July. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is likely to consider the issue next year, when it reviews the charging conditions that should apply to Manchester airport for the five-year period starting in April 1993.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of Manchester airport's enviable growth record, now serving more United Kingdom airports than any other airport? Will he ensure future competitiveness by cutting excess manning costs of £3 million per annum, preferably by privatising.

Mr. McLoughlin: We have received a number of representations about the privatisation of regional airports and we are carefully considering that important matter. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in passengers. In 1979, the number using Manchester airport was 3·4 million and in 1990 it was more than 10 million. That shows the growth that Manchester airport has been able to achieve because it has been allowed to compete and to attract more air services—which is good for both the airport and the people who live in that area.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the growth of Manchester airport is due to local authority investment over many years and that the airport's success is the result of the foresight of local government in the Greater Manchester area over many years?

Mr. McLoughlin: We could have a long debate on the reasons for the success of Manchester airport, but it would not have occurred had it not been for the competition that our aviation policy injected, which gave regional airports an opportunity to attract more flights and to serve more destinations. That is an important policy and one which we shall continue to pursue.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that Manchester airport's plan to construct a second runway is causing enormous concern among my constituents, who are worried about the effect that that development would have on the environment? Can my hon. Friend say what safeguards will be provided?

Mr. McLoughlin: It is important that Manchester airport should consider its long-term strategy and that any environmental impact assessment is fully debated. I imagine that if such a proposal were to come forward, it would be subject to the necessary planning inquiries—and I am sure that my hon. Friend would then make representations for a public inquiry.

Manchester Relief Road

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in relation to the proposed Greater Manchester northern and western relief road; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Roads and Trafffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): In addition to the representation made my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), 130 written representations have been received about the M62 to M66 section of the planned relief road.

Mr. Sumberg: Next Monday's meeting of SWARM, the motorway action group dedicated to opposing that development, will emphasise the widespread concern felt by my constituents because the Department of Transport has still not announced whether the relief road will go ahead or what route it will take. Will my hon. Friend put my constituents out of their misery by making an early announcement about the route, or, better still, that he intends to abandon the project altogether?

Mr. Chope: The delay in introducing the scheme is an indication of the amount of care that Department of Transport officials are taking. That is particularly so in


respect of the route's environmental sensitivity. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will introduce proposals for public consultation before next year.

Mr. Churchill: Although my constituents in Manchester Davyhulme do not oppose the concept of the road, as my hon. Friend will be aware they are strenously opposed to the proposed blue route. Will my hon. Friend give some sign as to when public consultation will begin? Is there to be a public inquiry?

Mr. Chope: There is no proposed route—we are still preparing for public consultation which will start next year. I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a need for some relief to the existing road because it carries about 140,000 vehicles a day. Improvements to it are a key to future prosperity in the north-west.

Railway Policy

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries whose Transport Ministers he has met during the year to discuss railway policy.

Mr. Rifkind: Railway policy was discussed at two meetings of the European Council of Transport Ministers, resulting in the adoption of an important directive to move towards ending state railway monopolies in the Community. I have also had a separate discussion about railways with the Dutch Minister of Transport.

Mr. Adley: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to confirm that there is an obvious difference between ending the monopoly and going for tooth and claw privatisation? Has he noticed that after 18 months' study Chancellor Kohl's government railway Commission has come out firmly against railway privatisation? On behalf of our party, will he realise that those proposing privatisation are the same people who proposed the poll tax? Please do not let us have a poll tax on wheels.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the ending of British Rail's monopoly and the future privatisation of British Rail are quite separate issues. We have demonstrated our belief and desire that, even now, British Rail should facilitate new providers of freight and passenger services to use under-utilised British Rail track. We believe that any serious desire for increased use of our railways can only benefit from the ending of that monopoly.
As regards the attitude towards privatisation in Germany, I note what my hon. Friend says, but l also recall reading a recent speech by the chairman of the Deutsche Bundesbahn—the Germany federal railway—in which he said that the ultimate privatisation of the railways might be necessary to ensure their best utilisation.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Secretary of State also noticed that Germany has committed billions of deutschmarks to modernise railways in eastern Germany on the basis of a nationalised system? Will he make it clear to anyone who talks to the European Community that one cannot expect a railway to operate when it hears vague threats of privatisation, is given no clear management line and is expected to find an 8 per cent. return on the assets that it is investing?

Mr. Rifkind: The requirement for an 8 per cent. rate of return is similar to the required rate of return for French railways. As regards the European Community, the most important breakthrough has been that, for the first time in railway history, all European Community Ministers called for an ending of the state monopoly of the railway structure. It will be interesting to know whether the Opposition and the British railway unions will be the last known defenders of state rail monopoly—no one else seems to believe it desirable.

Mr. Madel: In the overcrowded south-east should not future railway policy reopen lines for passenger traffic— lines which have not been used for many years? To that end, will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage British Rail to reopen the Dunstable to Luton railway line and say that we would rather that money were spent on that than on expensive television advertising campaigns telling us how many trains run at more than 100 mph?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable for railway lines to be opened or reopened where there is a demand for them. I am pleased that in the past few years under the present Government that has been happening. Throughout the United Kingdom about 17 routes have been reopened and six new lines initiated. I believe that, for the first time since the early 1960s, there is an ongoing increase in railway utilisation.

Mr. Wigley: I did not hear the Secretary of State refer to Wales as one of the countries with whose Transport Ministers he has had discussions. In view of Welsh Office Ministers' passing interest in transport and of the fact that the through inter-city railway service from Holyhead to London was halved from six to three trains a day two weeks ago, will he discuss urgently with Welsh Office Ministers and British Rail the reversal of that decision?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a keen interest in railways in Wales and we are already in regular contact with him. The circumstances involving routes such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred are for British Rail to determine in the first instance on the basis of the use being made of that service.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How does it help to advance the cause of railways for fundamental decisions about structure to be made in Brussels? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the residents of Southend-on-Sea have the second worst railway line in Britain—a line that has been condemned as totally unsuitable by his junior Minister—and that they are losing jobs in London solely because they have to use the Fenchurch Street line? They would be far happier if the Secretary of State concentrated on solving the problems of investment in that line, instead of trying to discuss railway structure and organisation with the EEC.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's question raises two issues. He is, of course, right to mention the unsatisfactory condition of the railway line that affects his constituents and I strongly endorse the points that he made about that. His remarks about the European Community, however, suggest that he may not yet understand the nature of the decision that was announced. That decision made particular reference to railway services operating through several Community countries.
The opening of the channel tunnel will mean, for example, that British Rail could provide services from the United Kingdom through the tunnel to France, Germany or Italy and not be prevented from doing so by protectionist measures adopted by Governments on the continent. That is the nature of the breakthrough —and a breakthrough of that kind had to be achieved at European Community level if it was to be achieved at all.

Mr. Snape: Has the Secretary of State told other Transport Ministers just how well we in this country plan our transport infrastructure? Perhaps he will tell them how much they have to learn from his handling of the channel tunnel rail link, for example. As—in the words of the chairman of the Conservative party—political considerations dictated this choice, will the Secretary of State tell his fellow Ministers that the choice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I am asking a question, as hon. Members would know if they were listening. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question, please?

Mr. Snape: We are pleased to see that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is still here to ask me to do so.
As—in the words of the chairman of the Conservative party—political considerations will cost the taxpayer, through British Rail, about £1 billion in connection with this choice of route, may we have a little less hypocrisy from the Conservative party about local government expenditure on transport, or on any other relevant matter?

Mr. Rifkind: First, as the House knows, I propose— subject to your leave, Mr. Speaker—to make a statement on that subject later this afternoon. Secondly, the fact that my announcement of the choice of route was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's party makes the hon. Gentleman's current remarks seem slightly absurd.

Rail Safety

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes next to meet the chairman of British Rail; and if he will be discussing rail safety on that occasion.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with Sir Bob Reid, the British Rail chairman, to discuss a variety of railway issues. Safety remains the top priority for both the Government and British Rail.

Mr. Pike: The Minister says that safety remains the top priority and the Government always say that it is paramount. Does he accept, however, that many people who work in the industry feel that financial pressures and lack of investment in the railway system are eroding the safety margin and that there is increasing concern in the industry about safety factors? What is needed is a major change in Government policy —or a change of Government.

Mr. Freeman: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to British Rail—not only the board but the staff—for making sure that safety is a top priority. Last year, British Rail spent about £140 million on safety and the board plans to spend about £200 million in the year

that we are halfway through. That, in my view, places the right emphasis on safety and British Rail's objective is to ensure that that emphasis continues in the future.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not merely safety that concerns my constituents in Castle Point, who, in order to get to work, are obliged to use the worst—(Interruption.) Yes, the worst railway in the country? That railway is completely unreliable. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the chairman of British Rail—who so far has been oblivious to all this— will be told that it must stop? Safety and reliability: that is what we want and demand.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend and I share my right hon. Friend's comments about the quality of service on the London-Tilbury and Southend line. It needs resignalling and reinvestment in new rolling stock. It is operated safely, but its unreliability is due to the age of its infrastructure. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are addressing those problems right now.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the public should have the fullest confidence in the transportation of both freight and people? In that context, can he tell us what safety discussions he has held with British Rail about the transportation of nuclear waste to Dounreay from places as far afield as Iraq, Canada and Germany, as there is widespread public concern in Scotland about that? May I have the Minister's assurance that he will advise the House of the details of the routes that are to be followed and the dates and that the police forces will be informed?

Mr. Freeman: The operators follow strict criteria as to the safety of their loads, whether carried by road or rail. If the hon. Lady is ignorant of that and cares to table a question, I will answer it. Prior publicity of the routes followed would not be in the best interests of the safe conduct of such material.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend arrange to see the chairman of British Rail at a different main line station each month? If the chairman fails to turn up on time, will my hon. Friend fail to renew his contract?

Mr. Freeman: From my knowledge of Sir Bob Reid's interest in railways, he has visited not only all the London termini but most of the rail services in the country. He is extremely assiduous in his task. My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman frequently out of the office on British Rail's network.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister discuss the safety implications of the creeping privatisation proposals that were announced by the Secretary of State at the Tory party conference? Can he now make it clear that those proposals will not go ahead, as the Bill is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Freeman: There are two parts to that question. The Government have made it plain that any privatisation of British Rail will be a matter for the next Parliament, not for this. There is no question, therefore, of any Bill being presented to Parliament in the next Session. The Government have always made that plain. Any railway system, whether it is in the public or the private sector, has to be operated safely. The roles and responsibilities of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate will continue.

London Transport

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he expects to be invested in London Underground Ltd. and London Buses Ltd. during 1991–92.

Mr. Freeman: The level of investment undertaken by London Underground Ltd. and London Buses Ltd. is a matter for London Transport to decide within total funds available. However, I understand that the Underground is planning to invest some £500 million this year and London Buses some £30 million.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, does he agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that deficiencies in the level of service are the result of chronic under-investment in both new capacity and the replacement and renewal of existing assets? Is he aware that the chair of London Transport has said that investment must rise to £1·5 billion a year simply to maintain the existing level of service, a service that cannot even run when it rains because stations get flooded? Despite what he said today, will he acknowledge that existing investment programmes are threatened because of lack of money? Can he also confirm that rumours that crossrail will be delayed by two years?

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that British Rail and London Transport are proceeding firmly on the basis of depositing a Bill for crossrail in the next Session. It is far too early to give a commitment on the start and completion of construction. The grant of £2,500 million to be paid by the Government to London Transport over this and the next two years is double in real terms the grant that was paid in the past three years. The Opposition are not promising one penny more to London Transport over the next three years. Our record on funding London Transport is second to none.

Mr. Evennett: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about increased investment, but where is that investment being spent, because there is little evidence of where it is being spent?

Mr. Freeman: I could give my hon. Friend one example —one of many—and I should be happy to answer a parliamentary question if he tables one. The refurbishment of the Central line is costing well over £700 million. It will involve the replacement of the rolling stock and resignalling and will lead to an improved service for all passengers.

Mr. Leighton: When the Minister considers investment, will he recall that he wrote to me some time ago telling me that the lavatories on Stratford station in east London would be put in good working order in the summer of 1990? The summer of 1990 has gone, but the lavatories on Stratford station are still not working. How does he justify that to the commuters of east London?

Mr. Freeman: I recently visited Stratford station with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will he interested in the statement that is to follow on the channel tunnel rail link, which will mean big improvements for Stratford. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the public toilets.

Fare Refunds

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage public and private transport bodies to refund fares when their vehicles fail to run or are late; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: Arising from the citizens charter, British Rail and London Underground are preparing charters for their customers that will set out the level of service that can be expected and what compensation will be available. Private sector transport operators must decide how best to serve their customers in a competitive market.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come to compensate all passengers, particularly my constituents in Ealing, North, when trains and other transport are late? Would not the charter place a discipline on British Rail and other bodies responsible for transport, as they would know that they would have to compensate passengers when trains are late or when passengers are kept sitting in sidings for hours in anticipation of an arrival? Should not something be done, and what will be done?

Mr. Rifkind: It is, indeed, desirable to improve compensation measures, and under the citizens charter that is what British Rail and London Transport propose to do. There is the practical question of identifying the passengers who travelled, or who wished to travel, on a train service, but once those practical aspects can be accommodated the principle of compensation will be irrefutable where the service has been grossly inadequate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the 7.05 am from Manchester to London was more than two hours late this morning? Does he realise that for many passengers on that train it was the second time in a month that the service had been unsatisfactory? Is he aware that although they would like some compensation for that, what they really want is a train service that runs on time? The only way to achieve that is effective investment in rail stock. When shall we get some new units on the line from Manchester to London?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has a substantial investment programme. I travelled today on the new east coast main line service and arrived within three minutes of the scheduled time of arrival, on which BR can properly be congratulated. We should like such punctuality to apply throughout the service, and the hon. Gentleman's point is well noted.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the worst railway line is not in Essex but is the Dartford loop line, which serves my constituency? When will British Rail announce its policy to levy only small fare increases on what are deemed to be poorly served lines?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that British Rail is likely to make its fare increases known in the near future. In determining what those levels should be, it is important that some account is taken of lines that are known to provide an especially bad service. There should be some connection between the two aspects, and we very much hope that British Rail will take account of that.

Mr. Prescott: Did the Secretary of State read the Daily Mail story today which said that the Prime Minister had


intervened in respect of British Rail fares, that those fares are no longer British Rail's responsibility and that the Government intend freezing them? How does the Secretary of State intend to provide the capital that is necessary to meet his hon. Friends' complaints about Network SouthEast and about which line is the worst? It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to reduce subsidies for the south-east by 1992. Does he intend to continue that silly policy?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friends have been referring to investment in Network SouthEast lines. The hon. Gentleman should know two things—that investment in Network SouthEast is at an historically high level and that, under the last Labour Government, for three years investment was cut, not increased. It is the practice of Labour Governments, not the rhetoric of Labour spokesmen, to which the House and the country will pay attention.

A38

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing his Department's preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement Liskeard-Bodmin section and the proposed options for the Saltash-Trerulefoot section; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chope: I expect to announce the preferred route for the proposed improvement of the A38 between Liskeard and Bodmin in December. Public consultation on proposals for the Saltash to Trerulefoot section of the A38 will take place next year.

Mr. Hicks: I welcome the December 1991 date for the announcement of the preferred route between Liskeard and Bodmin. Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing worry about delays on the Saltash to Trerulefoot section of the A38? Will he confirm that much of the investigatory work was undertaken 10 to 12 years ago, when various options were published? Is not it about time that this A-class cart track was improved?

Mr. Chope: The Government intend to improve that A road substantially and as soon as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will not miss an opportunity to explain to his constituents that only with a Conservative Government is there any prospect of that happening.

London Airports

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Airports Policy Consortium on London's long-term airports.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Airports Policy Consortium has sent its report, "Europe One", to the working group which we set up to consider how south-east air traffic demand could be met in the light of the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority in its report CAP570.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the consortium's call for a more coherent airport strategy for London and the south-east in the 21st century to take account of the potential development of regional airports, such as Bournemouth Hurn in the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and for a new London airport on a blue water site in the Thames estuary?

Mr. McLoughlin: The group that we set up is considering all aspects of report CAP570. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable to have regional airport growth. Some of our regional airports are major international airports. Reference has been made to Manchester, the third largest airport in the country. I assure my hon. Friend that all those considerations will be taken into account.

Mr. Cohen: Are not the Government turning London City airport into a major airport and is not the decision to allow jets to use it part of that process? Are not the Government acting by stealth, instead of having a proper planning process whereby the people of London can be consulted?

Mr. McLoughlin: That decision was made after an extensive inquiry, and I think that it has been welcomed by most people.

Traffic Calming Measures

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he currently gives to local authorities about traffic calming measures, including speed humps.

Mr. Chope: I continue to emphasise to local authorities the importance of traffic calming measures as a means of restraining vehicle speeds and in modifying driver behaviour.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that people throughout the country will welcome the fact that the number of casualties on our roads has fallen to an historically low level, despite the number of cars on the roads? Does he agree also that there is a problem in urban areas, where the number of accidents remains high? Does my hon. Friend agree that if local boroughs used their powers to introduce traffic calming measures, particularly road humps, cars would have to go slower and that such measures would contribute enormously to safety in those areas? Will my hon. Friend do what he can to persuade the boroughs to use their powers and put in road humps?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the substantial reduction in the road casualty figures, which, as he has said, are now the lowest for about 40 years. It is clear that the major problem is to reduce road casualties in urban areas. The key to bringing about that reduction is traffic engineering measures, including road humps. I hope that local authorities will invest the moneys that they receive from their community charge payers and taxpayers in bringing about more regulations.

Docklands Light Railway

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for further extensions to the docklands light railway.

Mr. Freeman: The docklands light railway has recently been extended to Bank and a second platform should open


early next year. An extension to Beckton is being built and one to Greenwich and Lewisham is the subject of a Bill before the House.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the recent approval of the east London river crossing is controversial in that it does not include an extension to the docklands light railway? Does he agree that a six-lane motorway from outer south London and Kent into the docklands including Canary wharf, will bring greatly increased traffic through Newham, with queues, accidents and conceivably death to the people of the borough? Would not it be sensible to extend the docklands light railway from Beckton across the bridge into Thamesmead and north Kent?

Mr. Freeman: I am not aware of any proposals to do so. The east London rail study, stage 2, is considering, as the hon. Gentleman knows, improved access to east London by extending the docklands light railway and possibly by extending the east London line across the Thames to Woolwich. I shall draw the attention of those who are involved in the study to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Financial Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Serious Fraud Office regarding banking and financial transactions; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have frequent discussions with the director of the Serious Fraud Office about matters of departmental interest. The specific subjects discussed need to remain confidential.

Mr. Skinner: Have the Attorney-General and the Serious Fraud Office been discussing financial transactions to the Tory party in the form of donations by Greeks and Hong Kong business men? What special favours have been handed out to those business people by the Government? Why is it that the Tory party has taken money from Asil Nadir when that same man is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office? Will the chairman of the Tory party send the money back? If it is right to investigate the National Union of Mineworkers' finances involving money from abroad, why cannot we have the same investigation into money for the Tory party?

The Attorney-General: Who subscribes to what and to whom is not a matter for me. I shall refer matters relating to the NUM to the hon. Gentleman, who is its vicar upon earth, or at least upon the surface. It seems extremely unfair for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Perhaps I might be allowed to intrude in the hon. Gentleman's conversation. It seems a little unfair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that a man who is already facing 18 criminal charges brought by the Serious Fraud Office has previously sought improper favours by means of some subscription. If he reflects on that, I think that he, with his well-known fairness, will consider that it is unfair.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nonsensical to talk about fraud as victimless crime? I have in mind those who are involved with the BCCI scandal and many other such matters. I ask

my right hon. and learned Friend to accept that it is not a criticism of the Serious Fraud Office to say that it would be better if it could have more staff and if there could be greater co-operation with the City regulatory bodies. So often the victim gets fleeced and the fleecer gets clear away. Is it not time that we got in quicker and made sure that those involved with finance know that they cannot get away with these crimes, which are not victimless?

The Attorney-General: They are certainly not victim-less. That is why this Government—not a Labour Government—created the Serious Fraud Office with unique powers of investigation. Nor do victims have to suffer, seeing that nobody gets away. Since the end of the past financial year, 10 trials have been brought to a conclusion. Seventeen defendants have been convicted and only two of the total have been acquitted.
My hon. Friend also referred to staffing. The matter is kept under close review and supervision by the director. The staff is now up to the maximum permitted level. If I thought—and if the director thought—that a significant shortfall had occurred, I would take steps to see that it was remedied.

Juvenile Crime

Mr. Michael: To ask the Attorney-General what fresh initiatives he is taking to increase the contribution made by his Department and agencies and procedures falling under his jurisdiction to minimise delay in dealing with young people accused of criminal offences.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Minimising unnecessary delay, particularly in cases involving young people, has always been given high priority by the Crown prosection service. The new statutory time limits in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have in practice been operated by the CPS in the juvenile courts since June 1990. The report of the working group on pre-trial issues provides further evidence of the Crown prosecution service's continuing commitment to reducing delay.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that many involved in the juvenile justice system would be suprised at his complacency? Does he accept that justice delayed is very often bad justice? Does he also accept that very often, in the juvenile system, justice delayed involves young people not being diverted away from criminal activity? Does he accept that there is a need, in our fragmented system, for a lead to be taken in bringing all agencies together to speed up the way in which crime is dealt with, both in the interests of justice and in the interests of the victims of crime? Will the Minister undertake now to take the initiative to bring together all the Departments and organisations concerned to speed up juvenile justice?

The Solicitor-General: I accept that, in the juvenile system, as in the rest of the justice system, justice delayed is justice denied. But I think that people would be very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience of the juvenile courts system, having once been the chairman of a juvenile court, should not be up to date with what has been going on in the past two years. The working group on pre-trial issues and the juvenile liaison panels have been working in their different ways to cut down delays and to implement strict timetables, so that once the investigation is completed, there is a maximum, if possible, of four weeks before decision. There should be


only three weeks before first listing and, as soon as one has decided to prosecute, one should go ahead straight away and seek any additional evidence. All those are important initiatives in speeding up the system.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that often delay is not the main problem? In Stockton-on-Tees, for example, one young man aged 14 has this year been convicted 17 times of car theft, involving vehicles worth more than £2 million. That young man has committed a number of the offences while on bail or in the care of the local authority, and the local police tell me that, while they cannot deal with him in an effective way, about 75 per cent. of all burglaries and car thefts in the borough are committed by about 50 to 60 young people aged between 13 and 17. What is really needed is an effective way of dealing with them, not an effective way of dealing with any alleged delays in the system.

The Solicitor-General: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is widely recognised that, not only in Stockton-on-Tees but in other parts of the country, a substantial proportion of the crime committed involves multiple offences committed by a comparatively small number of people. Getting them brought to trial quickly, getting the cases brought together so that the courts can deal with them at once and finding sufficient secure accommodation for those who cannot be granted bail are all part of the problem.

Sentencing

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals he has initiated on the grounds of possible leniency of sentence; and how many have been successful.

The Attorney-General: Since 1 February 1989, I have referred 52 cases to the Court of Appeal. Twenty nine of them have so far been determined and 24 of them resulted in sharply increased sentences. Additionally, I have referred three cases to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Two have been determined and in each a substantially heavier sentence has resulted.

Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the use that he has made of the powers? Does he accept that the consequences go much wider than those 30 or so cases, as the Court of Appeal has established a tariff to help the judges with sentencing future criminals? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that experience underlines the sheer irresponsibility of those who opposed the introduction of the power?

The Attorney-General: I do agree with my hon. Friend and I know that he takes a great interest in these matters. The Court of Appeal has used this power, which I have had since February two years ago, to lay down guidelines for the assistance of judges. I will now be referring fewer cases because those guidelines are being acted upon and they are inducing much greater consistency. I also agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's sentence— [Interruption.] I am sorry, with the last part of his question—my hon. Friend is not known for unduly lenient sentences. The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 were strongly opposed by the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described them as wrong in principle and said that they

had been introduced for political purposes. It would be interesting to know whether the Labour party would repeal them now.

Immigration

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Attorney-General if it is still intended to remove the provision of legal advice and assistance from seekers of political asylum and from immigration cases.

The Solicitor-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 2 July. Home Office Ministers are arranging discussions with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has made it quite clear that there will be no change to the present arrangements unless and until satisfactory alternative arrangements are in place.

Mr. Fraser: Does it strike the Solicitor-General as very odd that a Government who pretend to the virtues of individuality and freedom should be proposing a state-funded monopoly of advice to refugees which is run by an organisation which does not want the job and to the universal condemnation of those who have commented on the matter and with the purpose of avoiding Britain's international obligations under an international convention? In view of statements by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, will the Government now drop that disgraceful proposal?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman heavily overstates his case and therefore spoils it. As up to 50,000 possible cases have to be dealt with in a year, it is widely recognised—and it is certainly recognised by UK IAS—that there is a strong case for a specialist agency in the area, whether or not it has a monopoly. Constructive discussions are in process which will help to show the way forward. To deal with such a large number of cases without building up a specialist service is unlikely to provide the best results for those who need that service.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Know-how fund

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the use of the know-how fund in eastern Europe.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs Lynda Chalker): The know-how fund is used to finance technical assistance projects in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. We spent £15 million last year and plan to double that this year. The know-how fund is admired by other donors and greatly appreciated throughout eastern Europe.

Mr. Marshall: While I welcome the assistance provided under the know-how fund, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also essential to provide a market for the beleaguered economies of eastern Europe? Is it not incredibly selfish of our European partners to refuse to do that?

Mrs. Chalker: All eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union, need to earn foreign exchange. Therefore, they need access to markets. We have led the way to enable those countries to export to western Europe. A substantial part of the package of food aid credits for the Soviet Union which is agreed in principle is to buy food in eastern European countries for consumption in the Soviet Union. My hon. Friend is right. We have had to fight our way through a block in the Food Advisory Committee with regard to those matters and we hope that by continually pushing with our partners—as we did in negotiating the Lome agreement—to get access for east European countries to western European markets. That is essential.

Sir Russell Johnston: While I accept that the know-how fund does very useful work, does the Minister believe that there is no overlap between the various forms of assistance being offered by different western European countries? Is there a case for co-ordination, possibly through the Council of Europe?

Mrs. Chalker: First, I do not think that there is much overlap because there is so much need. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our emphasis has been on banking and finance which are a crucial part of the economic regeneration of eastern European countries. Without those services there would be no channel for private investment, nor indeed chances for small business to develop. We have not seen any signs of duplication. We have seen a growing agreement on the part of Governments and the companies that they are now forming to turn to us, and not to anywhere else, for that essential economic regeneration advice.

Population Assistance

Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on population assistance through the United Kingdom aid programme.

Mrs. Chalker: The ODA booklet "Children by Choice not Chance", published in August, explains the developmental priority of our population initiatives. Health services must expand to meet the demands of couples to choose when to have children. At least 15 new projects are planned. The specific budget has expanded from £6·5 million in 1981 to £24 million in 1990, and will steadily expand further.

Mr. Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement is very welcome indeed, but that the underlying funding is still in considerable doubt as only 1 per cent. of our overseas aid seems to be going on that measure which must be one of the most important facing mankind? Surely we should be giving more in absolute and relative terms.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's desire to increase that. aid. In fact, our spending on direct population activities has more than tripled since 1980. If we add to the £24 million that we spent last year and the larger amount this year, the £91 million on other projects which actually helped in population planning, the picture will look a little different. We are taking more money from the country allocations where Governments will agree to it and through non-governmental organisations to try to increase still further population planning activities.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a yes or no reply to my very simple question? Is it true that last year, as a proportion of GDP, Britain spent less than it has ever done since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development began keeping records? Yes or no?

Mrs. Chalker: The answer is yes. I do not like it any more than anybody else does, but I rely on the facts. The facts are that Britain has the sixth largest aid programme. It has been growing in real terms over the past three years. It is closely targeted. We intend to ensure that the quality of it remains high. It has been repeatedly praised by the OECD. Above all, we insist on having tight evaluation procedures for everything that we are doing, and I am determined to see that that happens.
I inform the House also that the financial year 1991–92 shows a planning figure, as a proportion of GNP, of 0·31 per cent. and that much of the expenditure in the first quarter of 1991 would have been in the calendar year 1990 but for things way beyond Britain's control.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend accept that large families are economic necessities for many in poor countries? Children provide sustenance when their parents grow older. Therefore, before we start cutting the size of families, is not it necessary to decrease infant mortality and provide a market for the goods of poor countries so that they can actually earn income to sustain families?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), economic growth and access to markets are vital. That will help families but it does not remove the fact that a doubling —possibly even a tripling—of the current population of 5·4 billion during the next century will eat up more environmental and economic resources that growth could ever provide or conserve. That is why population planning is not only necessary but desired by hundreds of millions of couples who cannot get it.

Third World Aid

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to other members of the G7 concerning development in, and aid to, the third world, at the last G7 meeting.

Mrs. Chalker: At the July economic summit, the G7 discussed important development co-operation issues, such as debt relief, the environment, good government, trade access and the reduction of military expenditure. At the Finance Ministers' meeting in Bangkok on 12 October, the called on the Paris club to implement measures that go well beyond Toronto relief terms.

Mr. Watson: The Minister's reply did not refer specifically to what the Government are doing in terms of aid. Indeed, her answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was quite unsatisfactory. The fact is that the aid that is provided by this Government is on a downward spiral. The figures that were produced a fortnight ago by the development assistance committee of the OECD show an 11 per cent. drop in the period 1989–90 to a miserly 0·27 per cent. of GNP. Will the Minister reverse that shameful trend and begin to allow this country to pull its full weight in assisting the developing world?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Britain's aid figures are not on a downward spiral. Britain's average aid:GNP ratio over the past five years has remained around 0·3 per cent. As I explained to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), much of our expenditure in the last quarter of 1990 was delayed until the first quarter of 1991. That is reflected in the fact that we have a GNP planning figure of 0·31 per cent. for this financial year. I repeat that the critical points are the quality of the aid, its targeting and the fact that it is tightly evaluated. That counts for far more than merely throwing money at problems where it cannot be assimilated.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of her discussions will concentrate on the fact that aid should go to countries that practice good governance? Will she therefore confirm that there is no question of restoring aid to Burma and will she welcome the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi has been awarded the Nobel peace prize for standing up for democratic values?

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome my hon. Friend's question and confirm that there is no question of restoring aid to Burma at present. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome that award of the Nobel peace prize.

Mrs. Clwyd: What measures are the G7 countries taking to deal with the abuse of aid and trade provisions that was revealed in ODA evaluation report EV470, relating to six major power projects? Will the Government tell us the truth today? Which of the two versions of the report by the highly respected academic, Andrew Barnett, is the accurate report—the original one, which criticised the lack of appraisal and monitoring of projects, the export of deficient and inappropriate technology and the breakdown of equipment without any spares back-up, or the doctored report, from which all the most critical references were removed? Is it not true that Mr. Barnett has been compromised and is the victim of a Government face-saving exercise?

Mrs. Chalker: I am answering a question on this tomorrow, but I think that the House would wish to know that I wrote to the hon. Lady on Friday, rebutting the wholly unfounded allegations that she has made against my officials and asking her to withdraw them. Today the hon. Lady has repeated those slurs in the House. Therefore, I am glad that tomorrow I shall be able to report—and that it will be reported inHansard—the whole of my reply which rebuts the slurs that the hon. Lady unfairly made on 19 and 20 September.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for Wednesday 16 October will now be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The Decline of the Manufacturing Economy." Business will remain as announced for the remainder of the week.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 16 October to consider European Community Document No. 4315/91 relating to the safe transport of workers with reduced mobility.

[Wednesday 16 October European Standing Committee A Relevant European Community Document 4315191 Transport of Disabled Workers Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xxii(1990–91)]

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House recognise that many people in the country as well as in the House are surprised that we have not had a statement today from the Secretary of State for Health about the Government's further proposals for creeping privatisation of the national health service? [Interruption.] As the Government are so proud of their policies, I am surprised that there is any objection from the Government Benches. May we have an assurance that we shall have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health tomorrow and that the statement will not be used on Wednesday to eat into the important Opposition debate on industry, especially when, as a result of the Government's policy failures, redundancies sadly continue to take place thick and fast in our manufacturing industrial base?

Mr. MacGregor: We shall respond in full on manufacturing and the issue for debate on Wednesday during that debate. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be a statement today. There is not a statement because there are simply no charges to respond to. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman today talked about creeping privatisation. I noticed that his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on Saturday said that the Prime Minister
denies that the Tories intend to privatise the NHS. … His record says they would. After all, they've privatised nearly everything else''.
Is not that meant to convey to everyone that, as with British Gas or the National Freight Corporation, there would be a complete sale to the private sector—which, after all, is what privatisation means? That was on Saturday. Now everyone agrees that that is a complete fabrication and that the Government have never had any intention of doing that, so by Sunday it was changed to "creeping privatisation". That is meant to refer to contracting out, charges and the other reforms designed to improve the management of the national health service and to increase the resources going directly to patient care.
It is clear that the original charge was a complete fabrication and that the Labour party can no longer even pretend to wish to put it. It is now retreating and that is why there is no need for a statement today.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that we have two other statements today and no fewer than 38 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to participate in the first day of the defence debate? Questions should be confined to business on Wednesday.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: Following the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, and now that the Labour party is in the process of resiling from and withdrawing the shameless and sleazy allegations that the Government intend to privatise the health service, will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity for the Opposition to apologise to the country and to those vulnerable members of the community who have been caused needless anxiety by the wholly unjustified and inaccurate smears made by Labour politicians? The sooner they apologise, the better.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He is right to say that the smears were wholly unjustified and that the Labour party is retreating from them. It is important that the Labour party is honest now with the British people on these matters. It could have had an opportunity to debate them on Wednesday during the Opposition Supply day. We shall not lose any opportunity to point out the inaccuracy of the charges on creeping privatisation that Labour Members now make as a retreat from their previous quite unjustified charges.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is not the answer to the question raised by the shadow Leader of the House that, if the official Opposition were that keen on having a debate on health, they could have had it on Wednesday? The whole argument is being skewed and diverted from the real problem, which is the lack of funding that is available to the national health service. When shall we have a debate on that important subject? Could the Leader of the House also say something about the date of Prorogation?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I hope to be able to give the date of Prorogation on Thursday when I make my business statement. On the first point, if we had had a debate on the health service—I had just made the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—we would have pointed out that funding of the health service is up by over 50 per cent. in real terms and that the purpose of the NHS reforms is to ensure that that vastly increased resource is increasingly devoted directly to patient care and that services are provided as efficiently as possible. That is where the debate should be. That is what we should like to debate, as would the Liberal Democrat party, but the Labour party is diverting attention from that precisely because it has nothing to say on these issues.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree in the light of the extraordinary comments that have emanated in the past weeks from the Opposition that their refusal to select that subject for debate on Wednesday shows an inherent weakness in their case? Will he give these Benches the earliest opportunity of a debate to expose that still further?

Mr. MacGregor: I should be happy for my hon. Friend and all my hon. Friends to find such opportunities in the various debates and other motions in the period ahead. I am sure that when we come to the Loyal Address, for


example, there will be opportunities, if the charge is still being repeated, which it may well not be, to expose the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have other statements. I shall allow two further questions from each side, but please confine them to the business for this week.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Leader of the House arrange immediately for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House and explain why he is not following the citizens charter in relation to representations being made on defence? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of State, Scottish Office has refused to meet a deputation from the north-east of Scotland to discuss Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology, on the ground that such discussions would serve no useful purpose? How can that possibly be consultation?
Secondly, will the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be no statement on television franchises on Wednesday?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can give that guarantee, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. I shall pass on his opening comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the Labour party funked asking for a debate on the health service on Wednesday, in addition to those given by him and my other right hon. Friends, is that the last time it had such a debate the Labour Benches were almost completely empty?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Tory record is so disastrous in so many areas that there are simply not enough Opposition Supply days to keep up with them? Is he aware that we would welcome more Supply days to discuss the appalling record on the health service and the many other sectors where the Tory Government have proven so incompetent?

Mr. MacGregor: Even the hon. Gentleman had a smile on his face when he asked that question.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he would be failing in his duty if, in the coming week, he did not provide the opportunity for the Labour spokesman to apologise not only to the House but to the lady whose husband died and whom the Labour party used in its party political broadcast against the family's wishes, and to the doctor from Bradford who accused the Labour party of dirty tricks? Does he agree that the Labour party should apologise to the people of the country, not just to the House of Commons?

Mr. MacGregor: I must say that there have been many recent examples of unfair, inaccurate, false smears. Such scaremongering is absolutely not in the interests of the health service or patients. It shows the bankruptcy of ideas of the Labour party.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the choice of route for the new railway line between the channel tunnel and London.
Investment planned by British Rail of £1·4 billion will provide high quality, attractive and competitive international passenger and freight services once the channel tunnel opens. The upgrading of existing routes and the new international passenger station at Waterloo are well advanced. But British Rail believes that there will come a point at which additional capacity in the form of a new line will be needed.
The House will recall that in June last year my predecessor announced that the proposals submitted by a joint venture between British Rail and Eurorail to build the channel tunnel rail link were unacceptable. He said that he was not satisfied that the partners had found the best solution and that he was asking British Rail to complete its studies with the aim of maximising the benefits to international passengers and commuters, concentrating on the options for the route from the north downs to Waterloo and King's Cross.
British Rail spent almost a year undertaking a thorough review. It considered many options and also developed those put forward by Ove Arup, Rail Europe and the London borough of Newham, in association with the proponents of those ideas, so that fair comparisons could be made with its own southerly route option. It also compared variants to each of the main options.
British Rail submitted its report to me in early May and a wealth of additional information has followed since. I have placed in the Library a copy of its report and supporting information, which it has made generally available. The Government have taken account of all the relevant considerations, including regional planning, the environmental impact, and the effect on property as well as transport objectives. We have also been very concerned to minimise uncertainty and blight. We have reached the following conclusions.
First, the Government expect that as demand for rail services through the channel tunnel builds up, a new railway line between the tunnel and London will be needed at some stage. We therefore want to provide a secure basis on which planning can go ahead.
We accept British Rail's advice that a second London international terminal will be needed to complement Waterloo. We also agree with British Rail's proposal that it should be at King's Cross. King's Cross would provide excellent connections to many places beyond London, especially in the midlands, the north and Scotland, so that they would gain more of the benefits of the channel tunnel. It is also a convenient location for destinations in and around central London.
Secondly, we have decided that a route on the lines put forward by Ove Arup which approaches central London from the east, via Stratford, is to be preferred. It would satisfy our transport objectives by providing additional capacity when it is needed. Moreover, it would minimise the impact of the line on the environment and on residential property. British Rail estimates that 38 km will be in tunnel on the easterly route, as against 25 km on the southerly route. Only two domestic properties would be


acquired and none demolished, as against 127 acquired and 24 demolished on the southerly route. British Rail further estimates that only five properties would be within 100 m of the line and 115 within 200 m against 1,900 and 5,900 respectively on the southern route.
The impact on the landscape, too, would be less, with fewer kilometres of the easterly route in ancient woodland, on the surface in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or in green belt. Not surprisingly, therefore, British Rail's environmental consultants found when comparing the two routes that the southerly route
has greater long term impacts on landscape, ecological and cultural resources and greater potential for disturbance to residents from construction and operation".
Finally, in preferring a route on the lines put forward by Ove Arup, we recognised the substantial potential that it offered for development along the east Thames corridor. The new line could serve as an important catalyst for plans for the regeneration of that corridor that may stem from the study that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last week that he was Commissioning.
The alternative proposal for an easterly route put forward by Rail Europe is less advantageous in a number of respects. It could not be used at all by those international passenger trains that would continue to run to Waterloo. All those services would have to continue to use existing lines, without the prospect of any reduction in journey time. The route is planned to terminate at Stratford—which, although it will become an increasingly important interchange for journeys within London, offers poor connections to the rest of the country.
In environmental terms, too, the Rail Europe route is inferior. It impacts more on sites of special scientific interest, it passes through one designated special protection area under the EEC directive on wild birds, and through another area that is likely to be so designated. It would affect much more domestic property and, due to the length of tunnelling involved, more than twice as much spoil would need to be disposed of than from the other routes that were studied.
All further work will therefore be based on Ove Arup's route. Our decision takes account of British Rail's advice some weeks ago that to develop the easterly route to the same stage to which it had taken the southerly route would take about nine months. I have accordingly asked the chairman of British Rail to develop the route to a standard at which I can safeguard it, and to carry out a full environmental assessment. That will involve publishing plans as a basis for consultations with local authorities, developers, and other interests and the public. The implications for freight will be one of the matters to be considered further. Safeguarding will trigger compensa-tion arrangements, but I have also asked British Rail to consider what voluntary purchase arrangements may be necessary, and when.
Inevitably, the start of construction is still some way ahead; but so is the need for the line. BR's own forecasts are that the capacity of the existing network is expected to be sufficient to meet demand until around 2005. It will be possible to take account of the actual demand for rail services through the channel tunnel, once it opens. Overall, the choice of the eastern route rather than the southern route will not have any material effect on when the new

line might come into operation. Suggestions that a decision has been taken not to begin construction before 2000 are incorrect. No such decision has been taken.
I have also told the chairman of British Rail that it is the Government's intention that the rail link should be taken forward by the private sector. The precise financial arrangements will be for the Government to decide in the circumstances at the time.
Given our preference for the easterly route, I will shortly make a direction varying the existing safeguarding directions for the route that British Rail had proposed between Cheriton and Upper Hailing in the north downs. The effect of the direction is to exclude from the safeguarded route the section west of Detling, where the Ove Arup route diverges from the existing safeguarded line. I have also asked British Rail to withdraw its voluntary purchase schemes for homes in the Warwick gardens area of Peckham in south London and along the formerly proposed route between Swanley and Detling, and to dispose of the property that it has acquired there, whilst minimising damage to the local housing markets. The safeguarding and property purchase scheme at King's Cross will remain in place.
In summary, our decision means that the line will be built through east London, where the prospect is welcomed for the economic regeneration that it will bring. It will involve minimal blight for people's homes, and its environmental and conservation benefits, in comparison with the southern route, have been welcomed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and by other environmental interests.
It is also a decision which has been welcomed in the north, in the midlands, and in Scotland, and it will help to ensure that the benefits of the channel tunnel will be shared throughout Britain. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: I want at the outset to register the strongest possible protest at the Secretary of State's contempt in choosing to make his statement to the Tory party conference six days before the House could meet to hear his statement. The House will understand the sensitivity of a Secretary of State who, on the route decision, has been bushwhacked by his own Cabinet colleagues—especially by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—as it was said that the decision was not taken on transport grounds.
What is the Secretary of State's justification, particularly as his statement was planned to be given to the Tory party conference, which replaced "Play School" on television? Does he accept the description given to the Government's handling of this crucial decision of "disastrous" by the chairman of Eurotunnel, and "a pantomime" by the chairman of British Rail? Does he accept also the universal editorial condemnation of the lack of vision and planning by a hapless Secretary of State for Transport, who is in danger of making his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), look competent?
I welcome what appears to be the endorsement of Labour's policy on an east London—Stratford—King's Cross route which was published 12 months ago, and which was outlined in "Moving Britain into Europe", which I sold at a profit to the Department of Transport, last year. Keep reading—there is a lot to learn.
Does the Secretary of State accept that after years of chaos and delay there is still scepticism that the rail link


will ever be built by a Tory Government? Today's announcement is simply a decision not to adopt the south London route. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it unequivocally clear that the Government's policy, like that of the Opposition, is to build a high-speed, dedicated rail link from the channel tunnel to London and beyond? The Secretary of State will agree that British Rail's study and others, together with the Government's decision on the link, raise many questions, several of which have not been dealt with in today's statement. The House will need a debate on the full implications of the decision and of the link route.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is acceptable for the rail link not to be built or to be begun until the year 2005? I welcome the statement that construction could start before then and hope that he will give us some sign of his view of the matter. What is the earliest time that he thinks building of the link could conclude, if there was the political will to achieve it?
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether a further assessment of the east London route will include consideration of the original Ove Arup plan for a dedicated European-gauge standard freight line, which is crucial to northern and other parts of the United Kingdom?
Can the Secretary of State tell us what criteria will be used to assess the route's environmental impact in view of the Government dispute about environmental criteria with the European Community? I hope that that will not further add to the delay. Does not today's decision affect the future of the King's Cross Railways Bill, especially in view of the fact that the King's Cross development will knock down twice as many houses as the south London route would have done, although there are no Tory marginal constituencies involved?
What will be the future of the Waterloo international terminus, costing £140 million? Its assets were to be transferred as part of the public contribution to the joint project with the private sector to fund the original south London route. Is that still a relevant cost which can be carried over to the east London project?
Will the Secretary of State review the compensation terms for the future link? Will he consider prioritising the selling back of houses worth £100 million which British Rail originally bought along the south London route to the residents who were forced to move out? I hope that he will consider that. Will he allow British Rail to use that money to finance Ashford station—he has still not given any decision about that, although plans for the station have been on his desk for more than 10 months—or are we to live with a Portakabin, built as Britain's first international station on the Eurolink for foreign travellers and thus forcing 2 million passengers to go up to Waterloo before travelling south, adding a further two hours to their journeys and further congesting central London? Immediate decisions are required on that.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the differences in the cost of the south and the east London routes? On the "World at One" last Wednesday he did not know what was the difference in cost. Does he accept British Rail's estimate of a £750 million cost difference? Why is it more

likely that a more expensive route will secure private finance when the cheaper south London route failed to do so?
Surely the Secretary of State must now agree with the Opposition yet again that the rail link cannot be built without a public financial contribution and that therefore section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 needs to be repealed, along with reform of the stupid Treasury rules which prevent new forms of private finance from being used by British Rail, as recommended by the European Commission, the 100 group of accountants and as spelled out in Labour's document, "Moving Britain into Europe", which I recommend that the Secretary of State should read.
Many questions are posed by this statement, questions that affect London, especially east London, as well as the nation. I reiterate my demands for a full parliamentary debate and offer the support of the Opposition for the appointment of an independent Commission to assess the road and rail links involved with the building of the new tunnel so that they are envisaged as a plan for the next 20 years and so that we may have a vision of future transport requirements, can ensure rapid access to the new Europe and can prevent this sort of chaos from happening again.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) expresses that sort of bogus anger when the Government make an announcement that he agrees with, I hesitate to speculate what his reaction would have been if we had made an alternative announcement. My announcement was welcomed not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by the Labour party, the Liberal party and all other parties in the House, I do not think that one would have imagined that to be the case from the hon. Gentleman's rather unimpressive contribution.
On the specific matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, first he asked whether it was Government policy to build the high-speed line up to and beyond London. Certainly building the line beyond London would have enormous financial implications. I should be interested to hear whether the Labour party is committed to spending the billions of pounds that would be involved in the building of new dedicated, high-speed lines of that kind. The new high-speed east coast mainline has just been completed, and that has made a substantial difference to the route. It is not very clear what the hon. Gentleman is offering instead.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the building of a dedicated freight line would also involve the spending of billions of pounds. Moreover, as far as I am aware, neither France nor Germany—nor any other European country—has contemplated building a dedicated freight line of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman seemed to refer.
A full environmental impact assessment is required, and will have to accord not only with the United Kingdom requirements, but with EC directives to which we are fully party.
I see every reason for the King's Cross Railways Bill to have been given a boost by my announcement, given the recommendation for King's Cross to be the main terminus. I also continue to see a strong need for improvements at Waterloo. Not only will Waterloo be the sole terminus for the first few years after the opening of the


channel tunnel; even after the high-speed link is complete, approximately half the people using the channel tunnel are likely to want to use the Waterloo terminus.
As for the difference between the cost of the eastern route and that of the southern route, the actual difference in capital construction is to a large extent determined by the cost of the Stratford terminal. We hope that that will be very much part of a private-sector development. In connection with the overall question of financing. I have clearly said that I want the project to be funded by the private sector: we believe that that is the most desirable development. If proposals are presented that fall short of that, we shall consider them in the circumstances of the time.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand the importance of the statement to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I ask them to make their questions brief. There is a lot of work before us today.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential to avoid the mistakes of 1979 and to ensure that the householders who will be affected by the proposed route are given proper and speedy help with compensation? Is not a proper period of consultation also essential? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that the possibility of adopting the other routes that he has considered has now been extinguished once and for all?

Mr. Rifkind: Let me deal with the last point first. I can indeed give a clear and unequivocal assurance to that effect. It is important that the uncertainty be minimised, and that the blight be ended. That is why we propose to lift the safeguarding of the part of the alternative route that had been safeguarded.
There will now be the fullest possible consultation with all those affected by the eastern route. That is part of the process that involves the environmental impact assess-ment. I agree with my hon. Friend about compensation, which will be legally required once the safeguarding of the route has been announced. As I said in my statement, we shall also want to discuss with British Rail the extent to which voluntary arrangements may be appropriate even before the safeguarding stage has been reached.

Mr. Ronniie Fearn: We welcome the announcement; we have recommended this route for some time.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what will happen in regard to direct links to the north from the channel tunnel? Does he agree that the Ove Arup proposals are not at all firm, and that many areas along that route have still to be investigated? Those areas will have to be dealt with by a public inquiry, not only for environmental but for financial reasons.
The funding of the whole scheme appears to be extremely dicey. So far, we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State—in either of his two statements, or, indeed, in the television broadcast from the Conservative party conference—about whether funding will be available.
Will the Secretary of State also let us know what is to happen with the night riders, as I call them, away from the King's Cross development? The proposals make no reference to noise from night trains running through to the

north, most of which will go to the north-west. What is to happen about sound proofing of the additional track and the existing track?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue of the through services to the north. They are not affected by the statement that I have made today. It is British Rail's intention that there should be both through day services and through night services. They will benefit from the statement by being able to achieve the full increase in speed that the high-speed line will provide. British Rail has made it clear that, because of the technical problems that it is having with the manufacturers, for the first period after the channel tunnel opens it may be necessary for passengers from the north to change at Waterloo. That was made clear some months ago. However, it is still British Rail's firm intention that as soon as these technical problems can be overcome the through services to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be provided.

Dame Peggy Fenner: The Secretary of State will be aware that all three of the proposed routes went through my constituency. I compliment him, however, on choosing the Ove Arup route, which is considered to be the best route from the point of view of the environment.
I seek from my right hon. and learned Friend only two assurances. Given that my constituents will be pleased to have a station that will help commuters—they jolly well need it—can he assure me that car parking will be more than adequate in order to prevent overflow into nearby streets of Strood? Furthermore, can he assure me that the design for the additional crossing of the Medway will be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission and that it will be as near to the motorway as possible? British Rail gave us a guarantee that the design would be submitted to the Commission. The line will be very visual and will have an impact on the environment.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that she has given to the announcement. She has raised important points that relate to the environmental implications of the announcement. I am sure that the further work that is to be done, in particular the environmental impact assessment, will address these significant issues.

Ms. Harriet Harman: We in Southwark welcome the abandonment of the southern route. It would have been disastrous to drive a rail link through a crowded inner city area. However, I seek assurances on two points.
First, are we absolutely sure that this is the last word and that the Government will not revert to the southerly route if they find that they cannot finance the route that they have chosen? That would be the worst of all worlds. Secondly, can the Secretary of State ensure that his Department co-ordinates the investment of resources in our area where businesses have gone bust and homes have been boarded up because of the years of blight during the Government's mismanagement of the project?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks. There is no question of us reverting to the southern route: that is no longer an option. We wish the link to go ahead. If it goes ahead, as we wish it to do, it will be on the basis of the eastern route that I have outlined today.

Mr. Roger Sims: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making the announcement when he did, thus removing the uncertainty that has existed for so many years. Can he confirm that one effect of his statement is that, although my constituents welcome his decision, it means that for an even more extended period the traffic generated by the channel tunnel between the opening of the tunnel and the completion of the link will have to go along existing lines, two of the main routes of which run through my constituency?
What progress has my right hon. and learned Friend made with British Rail regarding the diminution of noise for people living near the lines, the value of whose property is affected by the substantial intensification of use of those lines—far above anything that could possibly have been anticipated?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of the announcement. British Rail has been continuing discussions with the relevant local authorities on minimising any problems that might be associated with its proposals.
My hon. Friend referred to the more extended period that may now be required. I reassure him that British Rail's assessment of the implications of choosing the eastern route rather than the southern route is that it will require nine months to get the same detailed information on the eastern route as it already had on the southern route. Apart from that requirement, the likely time scales are the same.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As one who has been saddened by the neglected appearance of the entire east of London, may I be assured that there will be concerted action between the various Departments? I am thinking particularly of the role to be played by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced that there will be special studies of the development implications and opportunities that this announcement produces for that part of east London. We are keen to maximise the significant contribution that can be made in dealing with an area of the capital that has severe problems of deprivation. This project, which the local community has warmly welcomed, is an opportunity to make a quantum leap in that direction.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Ove Arup has put forward some superb proposals that have won the support of both sides of the House and have won through despite considerable opposition, notably the entrenched attitude of British Rail? Does he agree that when it put forward its proposals it was backed by an impressive number of banks, and that if we are to get the project off the ground within a reasonable time scale it is incumbent on those financial backers to come forward and put their money where their mouth was?

Mr. Rifkind: I compliment Ove Arup on its work, and, as I said, we shall consider any serious proposals from the private sector in order to help to take the project forward.

Mr. Chris Smith: It makes much sense to approach London from the east rather than from the south, but it makes far less sense to

continue to insist that King's Cross should be the final terminal for the channel link. Surely it would make much better sense to have a modern international interchange at Stratford, with direct links from Stratford to the north and, by the east-west cross-rail, to the west as well? To put the terminus at King's Cross does no good for the environment of the people of King's Cross or for the aim, which we all share, of ensuring that the benefits of the channel tunnel can be spread around the country.

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with his conclusion. The work that British Rail did on identifying the importance of King's Cross as the natural terminus for the link is difficult to fault. Those who use that route will either wish to travel within London or to points north and west of London. It is difficult to imagine a terminus other than King's Cross that could offer those travellers that convenience and opportunity, which is an important factor to take into account.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that this is particularly bitter news for my constituents in the southern parts of Northfleet and Gravesend who are being asked to pay the price and to make sacrifices for this project? Does he understand that it will be essential to sink the link past those two towns into a cutting and preferably to cover it? Will he give an undertaking that British Rail will extend its voluntary purchase scheme to my constituents immediately?

Mr. Rifkind: On the latter point, I said in my statement that I would want to discuss with British Rail the possibility of voluntary arrangements in advance of the automatic compensation that flows from the safeguarding procedures.
I entirely understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that the environmental implications for his constituents are properly taken into account. The environmental impact assessment will provide an opportunity to do just that.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail thinks that this proposal is so crazy that it has released to London Members of Parliament four working documents—its internal document, the report of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, an environmental report and a financial report? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, taken together, those reports show that no decision ever undertaken by a British Government has promised less value for money? Is he aware that, even on a cost-benefit analysis, the taxpayer will end up losing hundreds of millions of pounds?

Mr. Rifkind: We have tabled in the Vote Office the very documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, so they are not quite the revealing scoop which he thought that he had discovered. I think that most hon. Members would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the importance of ensuring a proper infrastructure to meet the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Although I am sure that the majority of my constituents will welcome the choice of an east London route, will my right hon. and


learned Friend offer more help to those living alongside the already congested rail lines of south London, which clearly will have to carry the bulk of the freight to the channel tunnel for 10 years after 1993?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend properly raises. Clearly, any new, substantial increase in railway services has implications for those living near the existing railway line. We are considering whether British Rail should be able to assist such persons. This is a difficult matter, and we shall want to consider how it can best be taken forward.

Ms. Kate Hoey: Over the past few years, one of the most frustrating aspects of the delay has been the passing of the buck faced by residents when contacting British Rail and London Transport to get the issue clarified. Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question: who is now in charge of this rail project? Is it the Secretary of State for Transport, the Department of Transport, British Rail or Ove Arup? If British Rail does not agree with the route, how can we possibly expect residents to know whom to contact to discuss what is happening near their homes?

Mr. Rifkind: British Rail has said that it accepts the Government's decision on the eastern route. British Rail is now going forward, at my request, with consideration of the detailed route, and it will then carry out an environmental assessment. Therefore, any questions on this matter that the hon. Lady or her constituents wish to ask should be put to British Rail at this stage.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, I should like to congratulate him and his Ministers on stepping straight into the necessary decision on transport infrastructure. In the past, the Opposition have complained about infrastructure, but this decision has proved them absolutely wrong. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the decision to use the Ove Arup route provides a much greater opportunity for freight to travel on that line than did British Rail's south London option?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he gave the decision. I said in my statement that I wanted the freight option to be further considered. Ove Arup has certain ideas about the use of freight on that line. Obviously, British Rail will need to consider that matter before a clear decision is made. I believe that the welcome that has been given by all parties in the House to the statement shows that the Government were correct to come to that judgment and that British Rail can realise the consequences its proposals would have had if they had been endorsed.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to the Secretary of State that he has come to almost the right decision for a number of dubious reasons? With all the confusion and mayhem, it was no way for the Government to have made such an important decision. We still do not know—we are still uncertain after the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey)—who is in charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be in charge, and he should say so from the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that the route chosen—the Ove Arup route—is not the best one? Instead, the Government should have chosen

the route from Hither Green to Canning Town through a tunnel, which then continues up the Lea valley to Stratford. That is the Newham-Colin Buchanan route. Has he studied that route? It would be cheaper and environmentally less damaging. It would not destroy the site of special scientific interest on Rainham marshes. He should consider that carefully. As British Rail is clearly livid with the decision, it must take seriously the fact that Stratford is to have an international station. It must be not a parkway station but a proper international station, with proper connections to the north.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial welcome for the decision itself. Part of the problem associated with the proposal to which he referred, which was put forward by the London borough of Newham, was the suggestion that Stratford should be the final terminus of the high-speed line. I have already said why I thought that to be undesirable and unacceptable. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that British Rail is required to take forward the eastern route as the basis on which the project will go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on choosing the best route for the channel tunnel rail link? It is the best route because it is best environmentally and the best operationally. It is widely welcomed in my constituency. A great burden of anxiety has been lifted from many of my constituents' heads and the community is no longer under threat. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend, however, that there is enduring and continuing blight. British Rail has purchased many houses, and the confidence of the community in the housing market has been lost. Can he give me an assurance that, when British Rail releases the houses that it owns on to the open market, it will do so in a controlled way to ensure that the market is not distorted and the community can regenerate itself?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is highly desirable that any release of the property that British Rail has acquired should take place in a controlled fashion so as not to distort the housing market either in my hon. Friend's constituency or elsewhere where the problem has arisen. He has made a reasonable point that I am happy to endorse.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that if he and his Department had listened a little more closely to Newham Members he could have made a similar announcement a long time ago, thereby saving a great deal of time and money? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us exactly what is envisaged at Stratford? Will he tell us that there will be a proper international station at Stratford? Will he undertake to consult closely with the London borough of Newham on the environmental impact and the reduced disruption and to ensure that the people of Stratford and of the east end generally get the economic and employment benefits?

Mr. Rifkind: It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford, and it is desirable to have the consultations with the local authority that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I was pleased that the leader of the Newham borough council welcomed the Government's announcement.

Mr. Robin Squire: As a Member whose constituency contains the revised route, may I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that there will be a general welcome in Essex and east London boroughs for the guts of his decision? Will he confirm that the site of special scientific interest mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not be destroyed by the proposal, although it will obviously have some impact upon it? That will reassure those who heard the hon. Gentleman's comment that there will be no long-term destruction of the SSSI.

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we want to minimise the impact on any site of special scientific interest. Whichever route had been chosen—whether the eastern or the southern route—would have involved some effect on SSSIs; that was unavoidable. The purpose of the environmental impact assessment will be to clarify the way in which that problem can best be accommodated.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State rightly referred to the general welcome given in Scotland to the siting of the second international terminal at King's Cross. In that context, and particularly given the importance of exports to the Scottish economy, can he tell the House what discussions he is holding with the Secretary of State for Scotland, ScotRail and other interested organisations about the development of links between Scotland and King's Cross? In particular, may I remind him that Scotland does not stop at Edinburgh and Glasgow and that great importance is also attached to the matter in the north-east and the north of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course, these matters are especially important; in a sense, they are almost more important the further north one goes. At the moment, for example, it takes about five or six days to send freight from central Scotland to Spain, whereas, once the channel tunnel is open, it will be possible to undertake the same journey in 42 to 52 hours. Likewise, the midlands and the north of England will benefit from the tunnel.
These matters are being addressed by British Rail at the moment, and one of the most important decisions that BR will be taking in the near future will involve the choice of a Scottish freightliner terminal, which also has important economic and industrial implications.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): Notwithstanding the fact that both the new route and the previously preferred route would appear to go through my constituency, may I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend, both from a national and a regional standpoint, on the excellent common-sense decision that he has made? May I also urge him to give early consideration to the deeply serious problems of those living on the existing designated routes to the channel tunnel for whom the problems of blight are every bit as bad as for those on the previously preferred route? Will he please make an early announcement of help for those people whose houses have been rendered valueless?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome of the decision itself. I am aware of the difficulties to which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred and, as I said, we are considering the matter to see whether it is possible, in co-operation and consultation with British Rail, to make progress on this difficult and sensitive matter.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State again try to explain to us why, of itself, the announcement is good news for travellers from the north, because his first attempt sounded to me like pure gobbledegook? Will he confirm that, at present, there is no guarantee of the financing of the tunnel-to-Stratford link and that, under this Government, there is even less guarantee of the link then being taken to King's Cross? The Government have again this week failed to bring the King's Cross Railways Bill back into the parliamentary timetable.
What will happen? What gurantees are there that we shall have even the point of interchange at King's Cross, let alone direct connections, to give a proper service from the north? Is not it an absolute disgrace that, on the morning after the announcement was finally made—after all the delay—Ove Arup, the sponsor of the group, still says that it has no idea where the money is coming from? It has no idea on the tunnel-to-Stratford link; it certainly has no idea on the Stratford-to-King's Cross link.

Mr. Rifkind: It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who made it clear that she welcomed the announcement and believed that it would be beneficial to Scotland. Moreover, I believe that the announcement has also been welcomed by Labour Members representing constituencies north of the border. The choice of King's Cross, as opposed to Stratford, as the terminus has been warmly welcomed by Scottish industry, the Scottish CBI and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that fact rather than carping about the matter.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a decision which I believe will be in the long-term interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, but may I also remind him that for many months British Rail has been telling the long-suffering commuters who use the north Kent line that the proposed fast link into central London will be their salvation? Now that that will clearly not be the case, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me and the House that money will not be diverted from much-needed commuter programmes to subsidising the fast link?

Mr. Rifkind: In its assessment of the two routes, British Rail assumed that, whichever route was chosen, there would be the same number of daily commuter services from Kent into London. Obviously the choice of route influences the places to which commuters may go and at which they may alight, but the number of commuter services will continue to be increased and improved and many commuters will benefit substantially, irrespective of the choice of route. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be no question at all of commuters being expected in any way to see a diminution in their services to provide funding for the channel tunnel service.
We have already made it clear that whatever route was chosen, if there were commuter benefits as a consequence of the new line, the Government would be prepared to fund those benefits in the usual way.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the Secretary of State has given his preference for the second terminal to be at King's Cross, will he now consider the link between Stratford and King's Cross? Will that link be through a tunnel on a dedicated line or will the north


London line be upgraded to link with the western region and the north-west? That is important because the north London line has experienced underinvestment for some time and the people who live along that line need to be aware of the future of that route.

Mr. Rifkind: The intention is that the stretch of line between Stratford and King's Cross should be a tunnel, and that clearly will be more acceptable to people who live in the locality

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware of the importance of the matter, but we have a busy day before us. I will allow questions to continue for another five minutes and we must, I regret, move on. Will hon. Members please ask brief questions?

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I do not believe that commuters will carry on as they do now as electronic communications are developing so rapidly, and I do not believe that the European Community will continue to accept the ever-increasing numbers of even heavier lorries. Freight is the key to all this. Will my right hon. and learned Friend upgrade his assurance that freight will be central to the assessment of the route?

Mr. Rifkind: It is important to ensure that the opening of the channel tunnel enables major benefits to be achieved by the United Kingdom economy as a result of improved freight times for exports and imports from sources in the United Kingdom to the continent. The Government believe that that is important, and I would expect British Rail to treat it as important.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the choice of the eastern route to King's Cross and Stratford as opposed to the central route advocated by the London borough of Newham was made for developmental reasons? Is not a fact that lucky landowners near designated stations on the route between London and Ashford will have direct contact with Paris and London? Will that not increase the value of the land? As the Secretary of State for the Environment created the London Docklands development corporation, which has not been a general benefit to most of the inhabitants of east London, does the Secretary of State for Transport accept that there is a certain amount of cynicism about the motives of the Secretary of State and the decision taken on the matter?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may wish to suggest that he is cynical, but that does not appear to be the reaction of those who have welcomed the project, including people in the Labour party in the London borough of Newham. The hon. Gentleman is alone in his cynicism.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on a welcome for the orderly marketing of the homes which have been bought up in my constituency and in other constituencies? Does he also recognise that delay will mean more traffic on roads through constituencies such as mine? If we can have environmental protection for a railway, why can we not have the £10 million recommended by two inspectors for the road through Oxleas wood?

Mr. Rifkind: Each project is considered to discover whether the resources would produce a commensurate benefit. I am sensitive to the point made by my hon. Friend about Oxleas wood. He is aware of the reasons for the decision taken by my predecessor. I see no reason to depart from that conclusion.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Stratford may be the right decision, but it is not easy to tell because the Secretary of State sat on the professional reports until today. Will he be assured that my constituents in Leyton, which is next door to Stratford, will not tolerate their area being turned into a giant car park, motorway or traffic logjam to facilitate Stratford? Will he undertake urgent studies into the implications for neighbouring boroughs? The M11 link road was approved on a false prospectus. Now that Stratford has been chosen, there will be much more traffic on the road. Will the Secretary of State review urgently that Department of Transport scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, all the local boroughs will wish to consider the implications of the announcement in terms of their own traffic patterns. We are anxious to ensure that there should be the maximum benefit from the choice of the eastern route. It has been widely welcomed, but I accept that a lot of detailed work of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman and others have referred needs to be done.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As a Member whose constituency has been directly affected as it is on the north side of the Thames, may I give a qualified welcome to the scheme, provided that the railway line travels through the derelict marshland which borders much of the north side of the Thames and will not take out the 18th hole of the Orsett golf course? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the needs of the commuters who use the congested and almost derelict Fenchurch Street line will also be borne in mind so that as the new railway line is developed it may offer better facilities for the commuters who daily use that appalling railway?

Mr. Rifkind: I must confess that those who briefed me on the likely questions to be raised by hon. Members did not anticipate concern about the 18th hole at my hon. Friend's golf course. I cannot comment specifically on the implications for that site, although it would probably come under the environmental impact assessment to which I referred. I assure my hon. Friend that the points that she has raised, which are important, will be taken into account.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the channel tunnel link is to have any benefit to people in the midlands or the north, we in turn need good direct rail access to London? In that connection, what will he do about British Rail's decision to axe the inter-city route from Telford to London, which is a grave threat to the economic development of the region? When will he set British Rail free and allow it to electrify the line from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury?

Mr. Speaker: That question is a bit wide of the statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I expect British Rail to take into account demand for the line and the likely use of any of its services when determining whether to continue or terminate them.

Mr. James Couchman: None of the proposed routes has ever gone through my constituency, but my constituents look forward to the day when some relief is given to the north Kent line. They hope to see that route planned and built much sooner than the most pessimistic estimates of 2005, for they look forward to relief from their daily misery on what is the worst commuter line in the country.

Mr. Rifkind: There appears to be substantial competition among hon. Members for that title. I recognise my hon. Friend's point; it is a perfectly fair comment. His constituents are not as well served as they should be, and my hon. Friend is right to draw that point to the attention of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to this matter.

Yugoslavia

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on events in Yugoslavia.
When the House rose for the summer recess, it was clear that Yugoslavia was facing a major crisis—and indeed Europe a major challenge. Since then, and despite many determined attempts by the European Community, the crisis has deepened. The fighting that we have witnessed is dreadful.
Together with our European partners, we have tried to restore the peace. British monitors have been involved in the European Community's efforts to stabilise the situation in Slovenia and Croatia and to negotiate local ceasefires. We hope that this operation will soon be extended to Bosnia-Hercegovina and other areas. The bravery of the monitors is much to be commended and their presence in Slovenia has significantly contributed to the peace in that republic. Yet more important is the conference in The Hague, convened under Lord Carrington's chairmanship, to discuss the future of Yugoslavia. This is the only framework in which the various parties can discuss their differences—it is important that it should continue.
Sadly, there have been repeated ceasefire violations— on both sides. The Yugoslav federal army has continued to bombard civilian targets, despite the signatures of the Serbian President and the Yugoslav Defence Minister on numerous ceasefire agreements. Irregulars on both sides have been active. It is proving extremely difficult to halt the fighting. Political leaders on both sides must reassert control over the military and the irregulars. We shall apply all the political pressure that we can. European Community Foreign Ministers have looked closely at the economic and other measures which can be applied to Yugoslavia. We are considering the suspension of the Community trade and co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia and also an oil embargo. We will consider other steps, including action at the United Nations. We need to ensure that as far as possible the measures are selective, hitting the guilty rather than the innocent.
The only solution that can last is a political one, freely reached among the Yugoslays themselves. There is no military solution to this problem, let alone one imposed from outside. In the present circumstances "peacekeeping" is not a policy option—because there is no peace to keep: we cannot use our forces to separate the combatants. In common with our European partners, we are clear that there cannot be a peacekeeping role until there is a durable and effective ceasefire and until all the parties agree to have foreign forces deployed on their soil. Also, it is vital that a peacekeeping operation should in itself contribute to a solution of the underlying political problems.
Yugoslavia cannot be held together by force: nor can the old Yugoslavia be recreated. The republics that wish to achieve independence will have it: that principle is not in doubt: what is still uncertain is when and how. The independence of one or more republics should not be achieved at the expense of others. We believe that it is right to work for an overall settlement. Without one there can be no effective guarantees for the rights of minorities; unless minority rights are protected the region will remain unstable.
Together with our partners, we are ready to help the people of Yugoslavia to find a way out of their nightmare. The fighting must stop. Wholehearted negotiations must begin. That is the only way forward.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Minister for his statement. Like him, we deplore the loss of life and the damage to property consequent on the tragic conflict in Yugoslavia. We condemn the bombardment by the Yugoslav federal forces of the international treasure of Dubrovnik. All such action must stop, or else the international community must take action to stop it. We support all efforts by the European Community and the work of Lord Carrington to end the fighting and to bring an end to the conflict, because without that no settlement of these difficult problems is possible. We also pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the British monitors.
Although we endorse all the action that has been taken by the European Community, we believe that the United Nations Security Council should be more actively involved. Resolution 713 of 25 September rightly commends the efforts of the European Community, but, equally rightly, states:
the continuation of this situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security".
We support the arms embargo that was imposed by that Security Council resolution. Although we would support the suspension of the European Community's trade and co-operation agreement and an oil embargo by the EC, we believe that such action should be much wider in scope and should be undertaken by means of a Security Council resolution. Will the Government consider sponsoring such a resolution?
It is clear that the Yugoslavia that was can never be put together again. The new structure that will emerge from the present turmoil must respect national and ethnic aspirations within a context of stability and guarantees for the rights of minorities. Whether those objectives can be achieved will be a critical test of the new world order.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and am grateful to him for the support that he has given the Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the United Nations Security Council has a role to play. He knows that the British Government supported resolution 713 and played a part in its drafting.
He also knows that the Secretary-General has been invited to report to the Security Council and that he has sent to Yugoslavia Mr. Cyrus Vance who, I hope, will report back to him before the end of the week. It may very well be that we should seek another resolution, but, by the nature of things, we must await the report of the Secretary-General's representative.
I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about minority rights. The protection of minority rights is one essential if a peaceful solution is to be long lasting.

Mr. David Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ministers' efforts to deal with the tragedy during the summer months are much to be commended, as are the Herculean efforts of Lord Carrington in trying to bring peace to the tragedy? We all admire what he has undertaken to do.
Both my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that

Yugoslavia cannot be recreated and that the various republics will achieve their independence. I am sure that they are right about that, but would it not be wise at this stage to advise the Serbian expansionists and Mr. Milosevic that that will happen—that there will be independence and that the Serbian minority in Croatia must be guaranteed its position and its safety, and that, given that that independence will be recognised by the EC and the wider community of nations, there is no point in Mr. Milosevic, with the help of the federal troops, continuing the bombing, killing and bombardment in an attempt to seize Croatian soil? Would not that be the way to bring home the utter pointlessness and futility of this tragedy continuing?

Mr. Hogg: Again, I find myself in considerable agreement with what has been said. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about Ministers and entirely endorse his comments about the sterling efforts of Lord Carrington. The Serbian Government know the positions of the European Community and the United Kingdom Government—that we think that the republics will achieve their independence and that that principle is not in question. Indeed, Mr. Milosevic appears to have conceded that Croatia is entitled to its independence. However, the Serbians need to understand that the international community will not accept or tolerate any change in internal frontiers by force. I took the opportunity of a recent meeting with the deputy Prime Minister of Serbia to spell out that fact clearly.

Sir Russell Johnston: If we accept that there is now no Yugoslavia, why are we talking about sanctions? If sanctions were applied to the whole of what was Yugoslavia, they would inevitably be one-sided as we are witnessing an all-out attack by land, sea and air on Croatia by the Serbian military leadership.
Has the resolution of the plenary session of the Council of Europe on 21 September, which argued for recognition of Slovenia and Croatia and for the sending of a United Nations peacekeeping force, been drawn to the Minister's attention? Does he agree that the chances of such a peacekeeping force succeeding are now greater because it could supervise the withdrawal of the federal troops from Croatia and give the Serbian enclave some confidence? Will the Minister reconsider his position? Does he recognise that, contrary to what he has said, many people feel that, on this matter, the European Community and the United Kingdom have been slow, divided and ineffective?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's last criticisms. The European Community has acted in a co-ordinated and coherent way and its policy has been broadly supported. The hon. Gentleman does, however, have a point about sanctions. The trouble is that sanctions are a blunt instrument, which is why I said that we are trying to devise a selective approach to that matter.
With regard to peacekeeping, I must reiterate what I have already said. It is not a case of peacekeeping, because there is no peace to keep. It would be a case of using our forces to prise combatants apart, which is wholly different. A situation may arise in which a peacekeeping force could be deployed, but it has not yet arisen.
There is, of course, an argument in favour of recognition, but, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly said, the


problem is that minority rights are at the heart of this matter. I refer, for example, to the issue of minority rights for the Serbian enclaves within Croatia. They are best safeguarded within an overall agreement. In an ideal world, recognition of independence should follow that overall agreement.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that from the Croatian point of view the United Nations arms embargo is merely a reinforcement of the current position, which means that the federal troops—in reality the Serbian troops—have hundreds of tanks, guns and aeroplanes, while the Croatians have only a motley variety of small arms? Is not there a danger that the Serbians will advance village by village and slaughter the majority of the Croatian population?

Mr. Hogg: I know that my hon. Friend was in Croatia last week and therefore brings to this sad question a great deal of personal experience and knowledge. However, we would not advance the cause of peace in that part of the Balkans by introducing more weaponry. There is a great deal of weaponry already there. I would not urge the House, or, indeed, anyone else, to import arms into Croatia.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I commend the emphasis placed by the Minister on the political and humanitarian efforts made by the EEC, but will he watch the French, Germans and Italians, who seem to be leading us into a military involvement? If they want to know more about it, they should have a word with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who can tell them that it is a good deal more difficult than it looks from the outside.

Mr. Hogg: The words of the right hon. Gentleman are wise indeed. I suspect, although I have not asked him, that they would be echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). For the reasons which I have already outlined to the House, I do not believe that we should introduce troops of any kind into Croatia at this time.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The House will be grateful to the Minister for giving an account of the Government's policies and actions on this tragic matter during the summer recess. Those actions appear to have the general support of the House.
Following on from the previous question, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one action of the Government that has the broadest support in the House is that of seeking to curb the desires of those hotheads within the European Community who at one time appeared to want to rush in with armed forces from the Community while the fighting was continuing? The Government's action in dissuading them was most commendable.
Lastly, will the Minister please be good enough to bring up to date his advice to any British citizens who may still be in Yugoslavia and any who are contemplating going there?

Mr. Hogg: May I deal with the last part of my right hon. Friend's question first. Our advice is not to travel to Croatia or to Bosnia-Hercegovina at all and to defer non-essential travel to other parts of Yugoslavia.
On the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, there have been voices in the Community urging a more dashing policy—that we should contemplate either recognition or the deployment of some peacekeeping forces. In fact, the European Community has acted collectively and effectively. But my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been prominent among those who argued against the dangers of both premature recognition and deploying a peacekeeping force when there was no peace to keep. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall persist in that policy.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Minister accept that it is absolutely essential that the Government maintain an even-handed approach to the Croats and the Serbs and that it is easy to be misled by some of the propaganda which seeks to tell us that somehow or other Croatia is a western democracy and Serbia is not? Tudjman and Milosevic—both of whom I met recently, as the Minister knows—appear to be feeding off one another. Both are there as a result of playing the extreme nationalist card—a growing danger in eastern Europe. It is vital that we are not rushed into a premature recognition of the independence of Croatia.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I am conscious that he was in Yugoslavia during the summer recess. I am grateful to him for letting me know his experiences, which was valuable and helpful. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. There have been breaches of the ceasefire on both sides. I, too, have met Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Tudjman. In my view, they have both raised nationalistic aspirations which they should not have raised and which are difficult to satisfy. I take the point that we must be even handed, and we shall be.

Mr. Bowen Wells: What is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the motivation of the federal forces and the federal Government of Yugoslivia in continuing this conflict?

Mr. Hogg: It is not easy for me to be sure about this. In any case, I would make a distinction between the federal Government and the federal army, the JNA. I do not think that the federal Government have very much authority. Most certainly, the federal Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, does not.
I suppose that there are at least two explanations of what motivates the JNA. It is either to protect the Serbian enclaves in Croatia or to reassert and reimpose communist control over the entirety of Yugoslavia, or at least the entirety of Yugoslavia minus Slovenia. I had better leave it to hon. Members to decide which is the best explanation.

Mr. George Galloway: As everyone says, it appears to be true that Yugoslavia is finished. The more that some of us look at it, the more of a bloody pity that seems to be. In all of the Government's dealings in the matter, will they bear it in mind that the issue is not only the fight between Serbia and Croatia or Slovenia but that there are many nationalities in Yugoslavia whose rights and interests must be protected? Will the Minister accept that we must guard against a carve-up of Bosnia by the Croatians and the Serbians


together? Perhaps more importantly, will he bear in mind the potential for devastating violence implicit in the continued domination of the 2·5 million Albanians in the Kosovo by Serbia and the dangers of an international conflict arising out of that repression, which goes on almost unreported by the British media?

Mr. Hogg: I am always a little uneasy when I find myself lodged in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says, but that does not alter the fact that on this occasion I am. I agree that, in the sense that we have known it until this year, Yugoslavia is finished. Whether there will be a new association of a much looser nature remains to be seen.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about the problems of minorities. I stressed that point in replying to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the position of the Albanians, particularly in the Kosovo. There are also many Albanians in Macedonia, for example. He is also right to emphasise the position of Bosnia. All those points underline the importance of not prematurely recognising Croatia and Slovenia. The recognition of those two republics should come in the framework of an overall agreement which addresses particular points such as those which the hon. Gentleman and I have just identified.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I accept the broad thrust of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said. I returned from Croatia less than 24 hours ago. Will he give the gravest consideration to Croatia's deep resentment that democracies of long standing have not been more vigorous in championing its bid to become an independent democracy and effectively to deter Serbian aggression? I also stress that Croatia expects the United Kingdom to take a lead in granting a recognition of independence, not least to atone in part for the United Kingdom's role in submitting Croatia to many years of slavery to Marxism.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been good enough already to tell me about his experiences in Croatia. I recognise that within Croatia there is a degree of disappointment that European Community countries in general and the United Kingdom in particular have not recognised its independence. However, I and many others urged the Croatians—Mr. Tudjman and many of his colleagues—not to adopt the policy of a unilateral declaration of independence. I am sorry that they did not take that advice because the arguments against premature recognition of their independence are powerful and persuasive.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why hesitate over an oil embargo?

Mr. Hogg: There are problems with an oil embargo and perhaps I can explain them to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do not think that it would have an early effect because the JNA has substantial reserves of oil. Secondly, there already is an effective cutting of the oil supplies that come from within Croatia and that does not seem to have had a considerable effect on the Serbs for the moment. Moreover, and perhaps more difficult, the main source of supply is Greece, which has made it plain that she would have considerable difficulties with interfering with that oil supply, certainly without the authority of the United

Nations. Therefore, there are substantial practical difficulties in the way of an early oil embargo, although we are looking at it extremely seriously.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take two more Members from each side, but then we must move on.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that our activities in the United Nations go no further than seeking the imposition of economic sanctions if Yugoslavia does not respond to a United Nations resolution, because a wider resolution would be no earthly use unless the UN had the power to make peace rather than just keep it, which, for the time being, is out of the question?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's general point. The time is not yet right for a peacekeeping force. It may become right, but it has not happened yet.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) urged on the Minister the need to restrain the hotheads in the European Community concerning their foolish notions about military intervention. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the most effective way of constraining these hotheads is for the EC to play a subordinate role to the UN in this horrid affair? Despite the Minister's view that an oil embargo, an arms embargo and economic sanctions together constitute a blunt instrument, anything is better than a military intervention urged upon us by the hotheads in the EC.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has it in mind that the Security Council resolution emphasised the importance of the role being played by the European Community, as, indeed, have the countries of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. It is easier for the EC to act in the conciliating role in which it has been acting than it would be for the United Nations. There are some within the Security Council who would question the jurisdiction of the Security Council to act in this respect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the best way forward is that which is being pursued.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to underline the warning that he has given that independence for the various parts of Yugoslavia could make the position of the minorities much worse than it is even today. I was recently in the Ukraine and Russia and I saw similar dangers there. Will my hon. and learned Friend go a little further in saying that once peace in some way has been achieved the EC can continue a co-ordinated role and perhaps protect the minorities, if necessary with military forces?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that question in quite the way that it is put, because, first, we must secure an agreement which entrenches the rights of the minorities within the republics of Yugoslavia. How best the international community can underpin those entrenched rights has not been resolved. I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend has said. It may well be that the international community must find some way of reinforcing minority rights in Yugoslavia.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there a distinction between the position taken by the British Foreign Secretary and the positions of Community Foreign Ministers on trade restrictions?

Mr. Hogg: I think not—mind you, we are dealing with 12 people who often express themselves not entirely consistently, so one is not wholly certain of the accuracy of such a response. The views of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have been of immense influence within the Council of Foreign Ministers. I suspect that on every substantial matter he has been leading the consensus.

Coal Industry

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to employment in the coal industry.
The matter is specific and important because it relates to secret but specific proposals for the closure of no fewer than 46 collieries. At the taxpayers' expense, the Secretary of State for Energy asked Rothschilds to advise him how many collieries could be sold as going concerns and how many should be closed. Rothschilds' privatisation unit has now given him a list of just 14 collieries which would survive the privatisation process. The unit is headed by the Tory parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Highgate whose common sense and objectivity are demonstrated by the fact that he is the self-confessed inventor of the poll tax and author of a book entitled "How to privatise the world". The future of the coal industry is too important to be left to secret reports and secret talks between Tory Ministers and Tory merchant bankers. This House and the British people are entitled to know what is going on.
If implemented, these plans would lead to the closure of 46 collieries, the loss of 40,000 jobs and the devastation of coalfield communities. Their effects would not stop there: they would mean that Britain would have to import more than 50 million tonnes of coal a year, costing the balance of trade as much as £2 billion a year. It is right that Tory Ministers should come to this House and come clean on their plans. They should also explain why they have abandoned the pledges made to the miners during and after the strike in 1984–85 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Wales. No wonder no one believes their promises about the national health service.
The matter is urgent because these plans have already cast a cloud over the lives of more than 50,000 miners and their families, and the communities in which they live and want to work. They are entitled to know what the Government are up to and they should not be kept in the dark for the convenience of Tory Members representing seats in the coalfields or Tory-run companies which see the chance of a quick profit from coal privatisation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to employment in the coal industry.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decisions without giving my reasons. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member said. As he is aware, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether such a debate should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter he has raised does not, and I cannot submit his application to the House.

Hurn Airport

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Transport questions, one of my colleagues, I am sure through either a lapse of memory or manners, raised a matter concerning the development of Hurn airport at Christchurch in my constituency. It is a matter of great concern to my constituents as it is sited in the middle of the green belt. Unfortunately, my colleague failed to give me any notice and you, Sir, cannot possibly know what hon. Members will raise. May I ask you to make it clear in Hansard that if Members of Parliament wish to raise matters outwith their constituency, it would be courteous to advise the Member concerned?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, I am in favour of these courtesies. I adjudged when I called the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that his constituents might possibly have used the airport.

Defence

FIRST DAY

[The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 in its Eleventh Report of Session 1990–91, HC 394. The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee on Further Examination of Defence Procurement Projects, HC 432, the Seventh Report on Further Examination of the Procurement of the EH101 and Attack Helicopters and the TRIGAT missile Systems, HC 243, the Fifth Special Report, HC 646, and the Tenth Report on Preliminary Lessons of Operation Granby, HC 287, are also relevant.

Britain's Army for the Nineties, Cm. 1595, is also relevant.]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 contained in Cm 1559.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I reiterate what I said a moment ago—that no fewer than 38 right hon. and hon. Members have sought leave to speak this day, and that does not take account of all those who have sought leave to speak tomorrow. I must impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 pm. I ask those whom I call, and also the Front-Bench spokesmen, to bear that limit in mind, in consideration of their colleagues.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I know that your selection of amendments is final, I ask you to reconsider, because an alternative amendment that reflects the true policies of the Labour party has been tabled and should be debated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter that might be raised during the debate if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye.

Mr. King: The whole House takes seriously your injunction, Mr. Speaker, that we should be as brief as possible. However, since we last debated the defence estimates there has been a transformation of the threat that we face, and with it the most significant change in our position since the second world war. We must also remember that since we last debated the defence estimates we have witnessed the invasion and liberation of Kuwait and the subsequent events surrounding that conflict, together with many further and continuing developments. There is a great deal for the House to discuss.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I outline how we intend to structure ministerial speeches in this two-day debate. In opening the debate, I intend to refer to the overall background and to the developments on the international scene. In particular, I shall report on the latest position in Iraq and the significant developments there. I shall report briefly on the conclusion of the Gulf war and the initial lessons that we have drawn from it.
I shall also report on the development of NATO strategy and the interaction with the European Community. I shall speak about the latest nuclear


developments. On Wednesday I shall attend a meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group, when there will be announcements of major reductions in the nuclear stockpile. I shall report on the NATO reductions, on the reductions in our own forces, and on our progress with the new proposals for the Navy, the Air Force and the Army. I know that many hon. Members are interested in the Army, and especially in the infantry. The House will understand why I wish to refer in some detail to that and it will also understand that there are a number of other important issues that I must cover.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the debate this evening, and he will refer to further developments in the Ministry of Defence, where substantial reorganisation is taking place. He will also refer to certain new initiatives and to other important, detailed issues that come within his areas of responsibility, and which will be of interest to the House.
Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will speak about a number of matters relating to procurement developments arising both out of the new proposals for our defences and from lessons drawn from the Gulf conflict. He will also refer to certain nuclear issues. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, as well as responding to issues arising from the debate, will deal in particular with personnel and the issues affecting people in the armed forces. I know that those issues are of great concern to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, to Members throughout the House—and not least the issues of housing and redundancy.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that I welcome the agreement reached for my constituent Sean Povey and his two colleagues, to whom compensation of £105,000 each is to be paid—and rightly so? I wish to pay tribute to those hon. Members who helped to get that compensation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to Sean Povey and his two colleagues, who lost their legs through no fault of their own and were refused compensation? Indeed, the Government refused to budge on that matter. If those three soldiers had not been so single-minded and so determined that justice should be done, they would not have received any compensation, and they deserve a tribute.

Mr. King: We are pleased that after such a tragic accident an agreeable settlement has been reached. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was reached after prompt consideration of the legal processes involved. It is quite untrue to say that the Government refused to budge. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had to take a considerable amount of flak because he had to stand up and maintain his responsibility for the legal processes. I pay tribute to him for the part that he played in reaching a fair settlement. A number of hon. Members took the easy opportunity to throw flak at my right hon. Friend, but he had the responsibility for ensuring that a fair settlement was reached in a proper and correct way.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: rose——

Mr. King: Mr. Speaker has asked for brief speeches, so I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed with my speech. There is a tremendous amount of ground to cover.
My remarks are set against major changes in the world. The planners who serve me deal not only with the major changes in the outlook, but with the real reductions in the forces that we face. Any one of the items that I have mentioned could be the subject of a major speech, such is the measure of the changes now taking place. First, I shall deal with German unification and the spread of democracy in eastern Europe, and I want to point out the military consequences of those welcome changes.
The Warsaw pact has gone, and because the satellite countries have removed their forces from any alliance with the Soviet Union there are now 1 million fewer troops facing us from those countries. The progress of Soviet withdrawal from those countries means that all 150,000 Soviet troops have left Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The number of Soviet troops in Poland has been reduced from 45,000 to 25,000, and the number in Germany from 350,000 to 250,000, with the remaining troops withdrawing completely by 1994. That means that 250,000 Soviet troops—half of their total numbers—have withdrawn during the past year to a position some 600 miles behind their previous forward positions.
The position in the Soviet Union has changed significantly since the House last met. There has been the continuing emergence of the republics as independent centres of authority within what was the Soviet Union. The independence of the Baltic states has been recognised. I remind the House that at the heart of the tensions that arose within the structure of the Soviet Union was the issue of conscription. The House may recall the scenes of Soviet forces two years ago when they went to seize Lithuanian conscripts trying to avoid the draft. The growing independence of the republics strikes at the heart of the whole structure of the Soviet armed forces. They have been reduced by half a million and in their most recent statement on the timing of changes to the Soviet nuclear strength, President Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin spoke of a proposal to reduce the country's forces by a further 700,000 men. The impact of those changes on the republics has brought pressure for further reductions.
In addition, the Soviet Union is under economic pressures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister delivered politely but firmly and clearly, as chairman of the Group of Seven, the message that the economic support from the western economies for which the Soviet Union is looking will not be forthcoming if it is to be used for continual expenditure on arms and military equipment. We see evidence of the Soviet Union's early response to President Bush's proposals for reductions in nuclear weapons.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend mention briefly the morale of the Russian forces —particuarly those left in Germany?

Mr. King: A short time ago there were many reports of desertions and of begging at the railway stations and in the market places. There were also reports of some members of the Soviet forces trying to sell their weapons on the black market for any currency that they could get. I have no recent reports, but I am led to believe that morale has improved, and today there was a report that certain troops


had refused to move because they had little confidence that there would be any accommodation for them, other than under canvas, when they return to the Soviet Union.
I have spoken of the encouraging positive develop-ments against which we can plan our changes. What are the counterweights? The first of them must be the attempted coup that took place on 19 August, after the House adjourned for the summer recess. Welcome as the triumph of democracy over those who plotted that coup was, it must be said that it was about the world's most incompetent attempted coup ever. If it had embodied the kind of ruthlessness that typified other coups, it might have succeeded. However, it carried with it a sharp reminder of how quickly things can change. We know that there are warnings in the air in Moscow now of the risk of another possible coup. Underpinning the dissatisfaction that there may be in that country is the failure to resolve the future relationship between the centre and the republics—and one must comment, using the most modest language that one could use, that the Soviet economy is not going very well at this time.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that the concern felt on these Benches about "Options for Change" is that when that review was undertaken it could not take account of the very events that my right hon. Friend has just described? We appreciate that our forces must be restructured, but that exercise must take account of the points that my right hon. Friend is making. I hope that he will give an assurance that it will do so.

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will study the catalogue of events, he will find that things have gone even further than we anticipated. We took nothing for granted; we took nothing on trust. In the assessment that was made for "Options for Change" on 25 July 1990, we made no assumption of the collapse of the Soviet centre, and we saw no emergence with such rapidity of the republics or the collapse of central power and of the Soviet Union in the way that seems apparent now. We did take account of the collapse of the Warsaw pact and of disaffection within the satellite countries. The situation is that events have developed further than the basis on which we planned.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose——

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, if I continue to give way I will be on my feet until the close of play. I have a number of important things to say, and I must address issues concerning the Army and the infantry.
Other considerations challenge us when considering the future defence needs of our country. Earlier, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, set out the current situation in Yugoslavia. I am not sure whether he mentioned casualties, but I have heard it suggested that there have already been 2,000 casualties. As I recall, the number of casualties in Northern Ireland is 3,000 after 10 years, and that brings home just how vicious is the conflict in Yugoslavia.
We have considered the way in which we might play our part in Yugoslavia, but we do not believe that military intervention would be an appropriate response at this time.
As to further assessments of the strategic balance and requirements of our defence, we estimate that by the year 2000 a considerable number of countries will have ballistic Missiles, and some will have nuclear weapons.
That brings me directly to the question of Iraq. In the White Paper "Statement on the Defence Estimates", we set out the story of the Gulf war. Enough tribute has been paid to what was, by any standards—and I am pleased that the Select Committee endorsed this—a superlative job by the British forces and the others involved. It was remarkable in its planning, logistics and execution. Sadly, lives were lost—but very few, when one considers the scale of the action.
We are well advanced in analysing the lessons of that campaign, on which I hope to report more fully in coming months. I will, however, address some highlights now. The first message that comes through clearly is the need for Governments carefully to co-ordinate their objectives. The last such enterprise, in Korea, was dogged by disagreement over the aims of that operation.
There has since been debate, and there will be more, about whether the coalition forces should have gone beyond the liberation of Kuwait. In considering that question, right hon. and hon. Members will remember the challenge that was posed in maintaining the unity of the coalition and of being sensitive to those of its members who were critical of the launch and maintenance of United Nations support, which placed certain restrictions on our freedom of action at later stages.
I stress the crucial importance of proper logistic support. I shall have a number of things to say shortly about infantry regiments, but I may comment now that those regiments are no use unless they have proper logistic support. One of the lessons learnt from the Gulf was the importance of the totality of the military effort. Had it not been for the incredible efforts of the Royal Corps of Transport in keeping ammunition and other supplies coming and of the ordnance, engineers, and Royal Artillery, and the remarkable scale of the opening barrage, the role of the armoured and infantry forces would have been much more difficult.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will talk about the importance of the quality of modern technology, and of the part that it played in the Gulf. In a recent speech elsewhere, I made mention of the completely new inventions that were available to our forces in the Gulf, but which were completely unknown to those who fought at El Alamein. Every tank troop and every infantry platoon had satellite navigation available to it, and there were also laser bombs, the multi-lauch rocket system, the artillery target acquisition devices, and the ability to fight at night. Ensuring that our forces have the right quality of equipment is a vital consideration in our future plans.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I accept totally my right hon. Friend's comment about the importance of logistic back-up, but does he not agree that the morale of our infantry and of other branches of the services is equally important? When considering numbers in the infantry and in the Territorial Army reserves, should we not take into account the future morale of our service men and women?

Mr. King: Certainly, and I will have something to say about that as well.
One of the other initial lessons from the Gulf that came through very clearly was that it was a television and radio war, with reports being broadcast by the media before they could come back through the command chain. It was a major challenge to the relationship with the media, and we shall certainly have to give further effort to that.
Another aspect was the quality of intelligence. The efforts of the United Nations special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to bring forward every day fresh information about the scale of the military machine is no secret to the House and much of that information was not available to us in anything like that detail.
I shall report to the House the latest evidence that we have established that has come from that team, which includes a significant British contribution. Our inspections have so far established that Iraq has consistently under-declared, misrepresented and concealed its capabilities in all areas—nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic missiles—and is far more advanced in some areas than we had supposed. We have uncovered the covert military orientation of Iraq's nuclear programme which it always previously denied. The most recent nuclear inspection has shown conclusively that Iraq was well advanced in a programme to develop implosion-type nuclear weapons, that links existed with a surface-to-surface missile project and that it could have had a working explosive device by 1993. More than 2,000 documents have been recovered, and are being translated and analysed.
Iraq originally denied that it had a biological progamme and went to considerable lengths to obliterate all traces of one. Under the inspections that have been carried out Iraq has admitted to the programme and the fact that it has offensive military applications. Inspections have now revealed that Iraq has a vast germ warfare capability.
As regards the chemical side, inspections and subsequent Iraqi admissions have revealed that the initial Iraqi declaration misrepresented the size and extent of the chemical programme as only a quarter of what we have now identified. Iraq originally declared 52 ballistic missiles, but that falls hundreds short of what we believe remains—it did not include five types of missile or the super gun.
The inspection team that was operating in western Iraq has now returned, using special Commission helicopters for the first time—about which there was considerable obstruction which has now been overcome. We have discovered further undeclared launch sites, we have destroyed elements of a 350 mm super gun and a further team, which includes United Kingdom members, is back in Iraq preparing for the destruction of elements of a 1,000 metre diameter super gun——

Several Hon. Members: One thousand metres?

Mr. King: That is rather big and is closer to the length of the gun, which is between 130 and 150 metres. The other super gun has a diameter of 1 metre and we are seeking to destroy elements of it which existed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that what he has just said, especially about the attempts to gain a nuclear capability, only underlines the validity of the judgment that action

had to be taken to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and that it would have been unwise, to put it mildly, to wait and see whether sanctions would have worked?

Mr. King: I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to be reminded that they once held that foolish view. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The evidence is absolutely clear that sanctions would not have worked. I remind the House that sanctions are still being imposed. The idea that we would have let it happen and that we would have somehow found a solution to prevent the continuing agony of Kuwait has no credibility among any serious commentators.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us details of the information that the team has found out. Will he give the House an assurance that he will publish details of Britain's contribution to Saddam Hussein's armoury?

Mr. King: We are pursuing every aspect of the matter, because there is no doubt that there was a major conspiracy and a successful concealment whereby a lot of equipment that could have had a peaceable application was covertly obtained from around the world. Thank goodness that, because some countries did not wait to see whether sanctions would work, we have not only liberated Kuwait but passed Security Council resolution 687. I claim that the United Kingdom played a major part by insisting on passing resolution 687, which stated that after a ceasefire we would seek, identify, assemble and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. It is because of that programme and resolution 687, brought about largely with the United Kingdom's initiative and as a result of the courage of members of the teams including scientists from a range of countries under United Nations auspices, whom hon. Members have seen on their television sets working bravely in Baghdad and other places pursuing those awful weapons——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. King: I am sorry; I shall not give way.
Nor should we forget that in addition to the work by UN teams in Iraq against weapons of mass destruction, in September I announced that we would send Jaguar aircraft to Incirlik in southern Turkey to help to support the air shield over northern Iraq and to continue the effectiveness of Operation Haven. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the Royal Marines who have now returned but who played such an outstanding part and saved hundreds of thousands of Kurdish lives because of the reassurance that they gave during that difficult initial period.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. King: I want to protect the interests of other hon. Members.
I shall turn to our defence strategy, viewed against the background of the developments and changes that have occurred in the world. I take seriously the comment made in the Select Committee report produced in the middle of August. I understand why, due to the shortness of time available—the Select Committee was generous enough to say why the report could only be produced as late as it was in this remarkable year—we have not set out our strategy as clearly as the Committee thought necessary. Therefore, I shall seek to clarify that briefly. We shall certainly seek


to amplify that in any way that we can so that there is no uncertainty about it. The strategy and changes that I have proposed are based on careful assessment with our allies —of course we work closely within NATO—over a long period of time of the risks to our country and its wider interests in the years ahead. Principally, we consider the changes in the armed forces ranged against NATO, the abolition of the Warsaw pact, the reduction in Soviet armed forces and their withdrawal from eastern Europe. I have given the figures to the House already in my speech. Shortly they will amount to 2 million troops ranged against us and the Soviet front line—if it still has one in that sense—is about 600 miles further back than it was.
Those developments, which have taken place against a background of freedom and democracy for eastern Europe and perhaps increasingly within the Soviet Union, do not always mean stability. That is clear from the events that are taking place in Yugoslavia. In our assessment, we must be mindful of the fact that local conflicts can spill over into other countries. that neighbouring states may start to take sides and that the patchwork of different nationalist groups provides a continuing source of possible flare-ups.
We do not believe that the Soviet Union, under its present leadership—or the emerging loose grouping of republics—has an aggressive intent. Even after all the reductions have been implemented, however, super-power forces will still be there, much larger than all the forces belonging to all the rest of what were the European members of NATO combined. We must include in our plans the possibility that the command of those forces could, at some future time, fall into the wrong hands.
More widely, we must be ready, with our partners, to meet aggression where it threatens British interests, or the interests of our friends and allies, or where—as in the case of Kuwait—the United Nations needs to act. The nature of such risks is changing. We no longer face a threat of surprise attacks from massive Warsaw pact forces across a wide front. Under CFE—the conventional forces in Europe arrangements—there will be limits on Soviet forces in the 1,000-mile wide area from the western border to the Urals. The huge disparity in equipment will be eliminated, although we shall need to keep an eye on what forces remain to the east of the Urals.
That means that we shall have much earlier warning of a major attack. A small attack could still be mounted within a few days or weeks. but a major attack of the kind that NATO traditionally feared would be months, perhaps years, in preparation.
The security of the United Kingdom itself will continue to be bound up with that of the European mainland. As NATO evolves in accordance with the new circumstances, those links are becoming even closer. We see an increased role for the Western European Union, as set out in an important Anglo-Italian paper that was put to the European Foreign Ministers on 6 October. That paper foresees that the nine-member WEU will become a bridge between the EEC on the one side and NATO on the other, with the longer-term perspective of a common European defence policy compatible with the common defence policy that we already have with our allies in NATO.
Our future strategy will be based on five key elements within NATO and the WEU. The first relates to nuclear deterrence. Two weeks ago, President Bush launched an important western initiative to reduce the number of nuclear weapons; we are pleased that President Gorbachev has responded positively. We can now look forward to an

era in which many thousands of short-range nuclear weapons will disappear. Many hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons at sea will also be withdrawn. As long as the Soviet Union and other countries possess nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom will need them as well; the scale of our force can, however, remain small.
As the ultimate safeguard of our security, we need the Trident system. As in the Polaris era, our aim in procuring four submarines is simply to ensure that, reliably, there is always one on patrol at sea. The number of missiles and warheads needed to overcome anti-missile defences, and still present the prospect of damage that no one contemplating an attack on the United Kingdom could consider acceptable, is the determinant. The size of our force is not determined by the number of missiles or weapons that other countries have. Even after START —the strategic arms reduction talks—and the further steps proposed so far by Mr. Gorbachev, the Russians will retain about 20 times the number of ballistic missiles that the United Kingdom can deploy.
As for the theatre nuclear forces, I have already announced that we will entirely give up the short-range nuclear capability of the Lance system, and that the 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery will disband. Similarly, we shall give up our nuclear artillery capability. In recent years, we have reduced the number of nuclear depth bombs that are carried at sea in peacetime. In future, neither those weapons nor the free-fall nuclear bombs for our Harrier aircraft will, in normal circumstances, be deployed at sea; instead, they will be held in central stores. However, we still see an important, continuing deterrent role for a small number of air-delivered weapons. In his statement, President Bush noted that such weapons had an essential role to play in European security; that was underlined earlier in last year's NATO summit declaration.
In a world of the unexpected, in which Saddam Hussein was getting closer to a nuclear capability than anyone thought, it must be sensible to keep up a small but effective force below the strategic level. The current free-fall WE 177 bombs will approach the end of their safe and effective life around the turn of the century. Following a recent review, I can tell the House that we shall be making a substantial reduction in the numbers in coming years, as part of the overall cut in NATO's air-delivered stockpile. I expect that to be announced later this week at the meeting of the nuclear planning group.
I have mentioned the out-of-area need—the need to deal with circumstances in which the Saddam Husseins and others are trying to develop a nuclear capability—in connection with maintaining a sub-strategic capability. The key point, however, is that the credibility of strategic nuclear forces depends on the existence of a credible sub-strategic deterrent to provide the link with conven-tional forces. The fact that ground-launched weapons are now being scrapped puts increased emphasis on the need to ensure that the air-launch element is kept up to date.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Given that our present mininum deterrent is to be increased with the introduction of the Trident system, with more warheads and missiles, would it not be sensible, in keeping with that minimum deterrent, to have only the same number of warheads and missiles on the Trident boats as on the Polaris boats?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads what I have said, this has to do with the ability to penetrate modern anti-missile defences. We need a credible deterrent. There is no point in a deterrent that is not credible; it must have the capability to penetrate and to threaten to inflict such damage, having penetrated, to make it an effective and credible deterrent. The most extravagant and ludicrous waste of money would be to pretend to have a nuclear deterrent when that deterrent did not actually work.

Dr. John Reid: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: Next time round.
Nuclear deterrence, then, is the first key element of our strategy. The second is the capacity to respond to a land attack on an appropriate scale and at an appropriate speed. Small forces must be available quickly, and more must be available after an appropriate period. We shall provide a major contribution to, and leadership of, NATO's rapid reaction corps, which must be capable of prompt deployment anywhere from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, in response to any threat to NATO's security of frontiers.
We shall contribute a heavy armoured division—the most powerful division that we have ever mounted—based in Germany, and a second, more flexible division based in the United Kingdom. Those reaction forces will be supported by flexible air power based on Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier aircraft. United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious forces will continue to be available; behind those will come what NATO calls augmentation forces, based mainly on reserves, capable of building up over a longer period to match any recurring threat to NATO.
Thirdly, we need sufficient naval forces—helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft—to counter, with allies, any attempt by submarines, surface ships or aircraft to interrupt the sea lanes of the NATO area. The size and capability of the fleet will still be determined largely by the power and sophistication of Soviet naval power. Fourthly, we need forces for the defence of the United Kingdom homeland against conventional air attack, mining of our ports or other threats to shipping, and an effective home defence force. Fifthly, we need garrison ships and aircraft to meet our remaining responsibilities for the defence of Belize, Cyprus and United Kingdom dependent territories, including the Falklands and—until 1997—Hong Kong.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State will have noticed that a reduction of some 19 per cent. nationally in the strength of the Territorial Army has been proposed. Is he aware that the proposed Northern Ireland reduction is 40 per cent? In view of his deep understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland, will he undertake to have another look at that figure?

Mr. King: To anticipate some of my hon. Friends, who may raise issues about the Territorial Army, the matter is still under consideration. However, I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware of it, but no decisions have been taken. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have enjoyed the clear commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom homeland which I set out as the fourth of our objectives in our strategic assessment.
Our forces for the future were determined by a careful assessment of the risk that we face under these headings

and by the need to maintain the flexibility necessary to respond to the unexpected. They were the basis upon which the defence budget was settled in the autumn of 1990. What it represents, against a reduction of 20 per cent. in service and civilian manpower, is a reduction of some 6 per cent. in real terms in expenditure over the three-year period. In the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and many parts of the Army, the changes are now well under way. Thirteen older submarines and ships have already been paid off, although currently new ships are coming through, with seven type 23 frigates currently under construction. Three long-established RAF squadrons have been disbanded, with appropriate ceremony but with recognition of the need for change, as the United Kingdom has in part handed over its share of the responsibility for the air defence of Germany to the Germans.
I know that there have been some concerns about the size of the Army, where decisions had to await NATO's conclusion on the rapid reaction corps. Some of these criticisms may be said to be Army-wide, although certain of them are of particular concern to the infantry. I have heard certain comments that the changes have been made in a headlong rush, but they are being phased in over a period. A number of them will not happen until 1994. Their impact, therefore, will be in 1994 and 1995. That is not an unreasonable period of time. We are trying to move steadily and realistically, taking account of the uncertain-ties of the world. Some may feel that we are moving too cautiously. However, it is wise to be more prudent, more cautious or, to put it another way so that it does not sound pejorative, slower than most of our allies who have faster time scales for greater reductions. We believe that it is right, with our other commitments, to move more slowly.
If there is not to be a headlong rush, because the changes are to be phased in over a reasonable period, the other criticisms are that the Army will be too small and that there has been no change in the commitments. The changes have been criticised within the Army. Do some rather selective quotations from a letter written by the Chief of the General Staff to me, correctly advising me on attitudes and concerns in the Army, undermine what we have sought to do? Even if we can answer those points, it is said that we have anyway chosen the wrong regiments to change.
To take those issues one by one, the first criticism is that the Army will be too small. The implication is that my right hon. Friends and I went into a corner, got out an envelope and wrote down the first number that occurred to us. That shows little understanding of the structure for taking decisions within the Ministry of Defence. At one time there were separate service Ministries. That led to competition and to each service Ministry fighting its corner. No one can be criticised for that. Under the new structure, there are the individual chiefs of staff—the Chief of the General Staff for the Army, the Chief of Naval Staff and the Chief of Air Staff. Then there is the Chief of the Defence Staff who is my principal military adviser. He has with him a tri-service team, with tri-service military and civilian defence planners working together. They, together with the chiefs of staff and the Office of Management and Budget, try to bring together the best proposals that they can and to make the best assessment for the overall range of Britain's defences. Their responsibility is to give advice to me on that basis. I take full responsibility, however, for


the decisions that I announce, but I make them on good advice, on the best advice and against a number of considerations that I now want to spell out.
The Army would like to be bigger. Similarly, the Royal Navy would like to be bigger and the Royal Air Force would like to be bigger. Contrary to one or two very mischievous suggestions, at no time have I suggested that the Army Board volunteered or proposed these reductions. Once the defence staff, in consultation with and working through the tri-service approach of the Ministry of Defence, put forward their proposals, the role of the Army Board is critical in determining exactly how they should apply within the Army. I accept entirely that the Army Board, as well as the Royal Navy Board and the Royal Air Force Board, would like its own service to have more resources for its activities.
May I say a word about the Chief of the General Staff's letter. I do not intend to comment about what I believe was incredible disloyalty and disservice to the Chief of the General Staff in selectively leaking extracts from his letter, but I shall say a word about what the letter contains. It contains genuine, honest advice to me about the most difficult changes that the Army has to face. One word used was that the Army was cynical or skeptical—that it thought that what was being said, in particular about smaller is better, might be a bit of a con trick. The letter is quite old. I took that advice, as did my right hon. Friends, very seriously indeed. We have in front of us a major challenge. It is our determination to ensure that smaller is better. However, the Army is entitled to say, as are the other services, "We have had promises before; there have been reorganisations before and it was all going to be wonderful. However, we shall believe it when we see it."
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) asked me a fair question about morale. The Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force face difficult challenges. Despite the disappointments, however, they are getting on with their work. The Chief of the General Staff has always made it clear to me that the Army, as a whole, will do the same—that it accepts the situation and will make the best of it, but that it will give its comments and criticisms and make clear any feelings that it may have. At the end of the day, however, it will ensure that it makes a success of it. I know that that is the feeling throughout the Army as a whole.
I thank the Chief of the General Staff for the honest messages that he gave me. Anyone who knows Sir John Chapple appreciates that he is a man of absolute integrity and that he is honestly tackling an extremely difficult job. The challenge that he puts before us—to see that we honour the commitment that smaller is better—is absolutely right. He is right to lay it starkly and clearly before us and also to warn the Government, Ministers and the country that people are waiting to see whether that undertaking is discharged. Part of that undertaking will involve resources; part of it will depend on how we handle the changes in the redundancy and housing arrangements for those who may no longer belong to the Army. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will comment specifically on the help that we are offering with those matters, which we take seriously.
The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that those matters will depend on resources. We shall have to await the autumn statement from my right hon. Friend the

Chancellor to see whether we have the resources that can help in achieving the smaller but better Army which is our ambition.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. King: May I deal with this point? I want to make it clear.
There is scepticism in the Army about whether the smaller Army will be able to meet the commitments that have been set out. That point will be made by many hon. Members. I accept that the Army is still concerned about that matter. We still have much to do to make people understand the significance and the implications of the changed scene and how those commitments can be addressed.
I should briefly like to give the House some of our thinking. By 1997, the commitments that the regular infantry will need to meet will reduce by one third. This results from reductions in the British Army of the Rhine —seven battalions—in the garrisons in Berlin—a further three battalions—and in Hong Kong—a further four battalions. The increased warning time, which is extremely significant in military planning, means that five of the 21 regular battalions previously committed to military home defence can be replaced by the Territorial Army. That makes a total reduction in commitment, as the Army understands it, of 19 battalions. The number of regular infantry battalions will reduce by only 17 and two additional battalions will be available to the rapid reaction corps as extra reinforcement.
Hon. Members know that the peacetime situation is of particular concern to the Army. Increased warning time in peacetime is a significant factor in permitting greater flexibity in the use of the Army. Although we shall maintain appropriate levels of readiness for NATO tasks, under the NATO strategy it will be possible for infantry units based in Germany to take a greater share of emergency tours in Northern Ireland and elsewhere than when we faced the threat of surprise Soviet attack. The increased availability of 3 Commando Royal Marines means that broadly the same number of battalion-size units will be available to undertake emergency tours as there are today. Units of other arms will also be better placed to take on a share of those tours—as they do at present—thereby further reducing the burden on the infantry.
To anybody familiar with the problems of the Army, this is a critical point: I have heard people talk about the difference between 55 battalions and 38 battalions. The reality is that our current strength is nearer 51 battalions because they are not fully manned.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: May I finish this point?
The key factor in the new structure will be to ensure that all battalions are fully manned. That important component of the plan is often overlooked.
To answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), we foresee a relatively increased role for our reserve forces. Some reductions in the Territorial Army will follow from the reductions in our forces needed to defend Germany. The Territorial Army will take over roles from the regular Army—the TA's


traditional role now—such as military home defence in the United Kingdom. The final size of the TA will depend on how many want to join; we shall not wish to turn away any willing volunteers. I envisage that its long-term future strength will settle at between 60,000 and 65,000, compared with 75,000 today. We are engaged in a comprehensive consultation exercise with the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve and others. I plan to announce final decisions on the shape and structure of the TA later in the year. The TA offers an important way of preserving local links. The Army Board will sympathetically consider any proposals for the identities or cap badges of amalgamating regiments to be retained by TA units.
May I summarise the approach to the Army? It is important that we have sufficient numbers, that the units in which they serve are fully manned and that, in the new situation, they are properly equipped.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: May I answer this?
Although I disagreed with certain comments made in the Select Committee's report, I was grateful that it drew attention to the fact that, under our plans, Britain's Army will be outstandingly well equipped. The lesson shining through from the Gulf and from other challenges faced by the Army is the importance of units being properly equipped.
We have a considerable number of regiments, some of which are undermanned and a number of which do not have the range of equipment, support and spares that a modern Army should have.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: No.
Tackling those problems is at the heart of our proposals for a smaller but better Army.
That is the approach to the size of the Army. If we are to ensure that the Army is smaller but better, the difficulty is how those changes are made. Some units will have to be amalgamated and some corps will have to reduce. How is that to be done? The executive committee of the Army Board—I pay tribute to it—sought as fairly as possible to make proposals that ensure that we have fully manned, fully effective regiments.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: I will in a minute.
Those are difficult decisions to make, but the executive committee of the Army Board, in an appallingly difficult situation where there is deep loyalty to every regiment, approached it as fairly and reasonably as it could. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Winterton: rose——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One at a time. The Secretary of State gave way to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).

Mrs. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt in the House about the Army Board ignoring the criteria that it laid down? Is he aware that the Cheshire Regiment is one of the best recruited in the Prince of Wales Division?

Mr. William Cash: And the Staffordshires.

Mrs. Winterton: It also retains those recruits, as does the Staffordshires. Therefore, logically, they should not be amalgamated. Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Army's objective of having a 24-month gap between unaccompanied operational tours will come into effect, and how he believes that he can achieve that if the number of battalions is reduced from 55 to 38?

Mr. King: Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Army Board sought to address those issues as fairly as it could. Every regiment has compelling reasons to explain why it should not be affected. We considered this matter, and the executive committee of the Army Board examined it as objectively as it could. It made recommendations, which were unanimously accepted. I understand that the decision does not give my hon. Friend any pleasure. I am not sure whether she heard my earlier remarks, but I think that she will understand that, as long as I am Secretary of State for Defence, the commitment to Northern Ireland will not be forgotten; nor will we forget the debt that we owe to those who serve there and the importance of ensuring that the tour interval is reasonable. I assure my hon. Friend that during the exercise I frequently asked about the tour interval and I can give her the answer, which she may not have heard. At present, we do not maintain a reasonable tour interval. We hope to be able to do so in future.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose——

Mr. King: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."' Why not listen to what I have to say? Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the Secretary of State to give way persistently to Conservative Members, yet flinch in the face of the cold steel of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, it is for the Secretary of State to determine to whom he will give way. That is not the responsibility of the Chair, thank the Lord. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the permanent regiments, he and his colleagues clearly stressed the importance of the link between the permanent forces and the Territorial Army. Will my right hon. Friend please bear that link firmly in mind when deciding on the TA's future?

Mr. King: I note my hon. Friend's concern, and I know of her close interest in this matter. When there is a far greater warning time, the most effective deployment of reserves becomes increasingly significant.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned undermanning, yet he knows that there is no undermanning among the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots, the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders—there is excellent recruitment. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the TA that he will not do away with the 15th Parachute Regiment, the only Scottish Territorial Army parachute regiment?

Mr. King: Having made that devastating intervention, the hon. Gentleman knows that recruitment is one criterion and that past amalgamations, likely recruitment profiles and a range of other matters provided the basis on which the matter was approached. That is the basis on which the authorities sought to achieve their difficult objectives. My mailbag already reflects some interest in the parachute regiment to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As I said to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, there is continuing consultation about the Territorial Army.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I had better carry on.
The issues that we have had to face are set against the background of a full strategic assessment of the defence scene and the most appropriate response that we could make. I entirely understand why, for many, this is a sad and difficult time. We sought to address those issues and shall continue to do so. Many of those difficulties will continue. We have a duty to all those who serve and to all those who, after considerable years of service, will perhaps find that their services are no longer required. We are conscious of our duty and responsibility. We sought to approach the matter as carefully and prudently as possible. I do not believe that a single hon. Member would suggest that, against the background of extraordinary changes in the world and the transformation of the threat that faced us, there is no need for a response and for significant changes. That is what we now seek to carry out. I commend those changes to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the continuing improvement in East-West relations and the development of NATO and the CSCE to accommodate these changes; recognises the opportunities now available for further reductions in defence expenditure; calls for the maximum co-operation with our European partners to re-examine the roles and commitments of our armed forces; welcomes the successful negotiation of the START Treaty., calls on the Government to seek the establishment of further talks on strategic nuclear disarma-ment and then to secure British participation in such discussions; and urges the Government to provide assistance for defence industry diversification and expand the provision for re-training and re-housing ex-service personnel.".
I am not sure whether we need to intrude on the Government's private grief this afternoon, because it seems that there will be as many critical speeches from Government ranks as are likely to come from the Opposition.
On a day when we have spent much time reviewing the prospects for developments in our defence planning and our international arrangements for security, we could forget that only 12 months ago our armed forces were

engaged in Operation Granby, the largest and most complicated deployment of international forces since the second world war. We could also overlook the sacrifice that our young men and women made at that time—the 47 who died in the operation as a whole and those who still bear the physical and deep psychological scars of post-traumatic stress disorders.
The skill, bravery and professionalism of all involved bear testimony to the quality of the training and the justifiable pride in the uniforms that these men and women wear. If anyone thought that sanctions alone would have been enough, the progress towards nuclear weapons made by the Iraqis suggested that it was right for us to go in when we did. When the military judgment of the authorities considered it appropriate to go in, both sides of the House backed them. I make that point because the Government Front Bench has a tendency to insinuate in debates of this kind that the Labour Front Bench and Labour Members were less than fulsome in their support. That view was implied by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in a debate on the Army. I take the opportunity offered by this debate on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" to repudiate the charge which was made then and which has been insinuated elsewhere.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Does the hon. Gentleman admit that, although the Opposition Front Bench gave full support to our troops when they went into Iraq, the fact remains that the view of the Labour party, as enunciated by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), was that we should wait for sanctions to work? On that basis, we would still be waiting now.

Mr. O'Neill: The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation is as wrong as his interpretation of the analysis of the information that was given on "Options for Change".
It is the responsibility of all hon. Members in such a debate never to forget that the men and women in our services undertake dangerous and demanding tasks on our behalf. They do so without question and, consequently, we must never ignore our duty to make our decisions clear and our policies justifiable. When we fail to do so, we are breaking part of the social contract between those who seek to govern and those who volunteer to defend.
In this first debate since the publication of "Options for Change", we have the opportunity to search for the rationale behind the cuts and the regimental amalgamations and to examine in detail the Government's proposals for British participation in the European rapid reaction force. The House is entitled to expect a clear indication of how these British decisions sit alongside the wider decisions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the forthcoming alliance summit in Rome, where the new strategic doctrine will be unveiled.
Furthermore, we should have been told in this latest estimates debate—the last one before the general election —the direction of Britain's nuclear doctrine. The Secretary of State referred to it, but greater elucidation of the approximate size and composition of the arsenal is needed. It is a measure of the poverty of the Government's thinking on defence that so few of these issues have been addressed. My list has made no reference to the Government's admission of the need for a programme of


emergency aid to help those works, firms and communities that have been affected by the decline in demand for defence products.
I believe, however, that an announcement has been made—for Scottish consumption—that something is to be done about Scottish factories and Scottish defence manufacturers that have been affected by the cuts. It remains to be seen whether this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Scottish Office. Perhaps that will be unveiled when the Minister of State replies. This is evidence of the Government's indifference to those who supplied equipment, to those who worked so hard and who were so successful in getting our troops out to the Gulf. Now that their services are no longer necessary, they were not even mentioned in the Secretary of State's remarks.
No mention was made of the development of the defence industrial strategy, which would involve com-panies and workers in the restructuring of that part of the manufacturing base for which there will be a future in defence production. Neither has there been any reference to the scope for British initiatives in the nuclear disarmament process that have emerged since the failed coup of 20 August. None of these references was expected since past statements and ideological prejudice preclude such possibilities.
I had hoped, however, that the Secretary of State would break new ground and come out with some original thinking in meeting his responsibility to the troops for whom no tasks remain. Perhaps that could have included an initiative involving longer training for ex-service personnel. Perhaps we shall be given some news on the housing front. We would like to hear the Government's proposals for education for the families of the service personnel who are no longer to remain in post. The House knows that these responsibilities lie with the Minister of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said, it is clear that there are few members of the Government who will more stubbornly refuse to recognise responsibilities to service personnel than the right hon. Gentleman. These personnel include nuclear test veterans. He has responsibilities also for widows' pensions, plus payments for those in the Gulf and recompense for those who have been injured. The right hon. Gentleman will not wake up until he is kicked. He will not move unless he is dragged. He will not act until it dawns on him that his indolence and brutish insensitivity has finally placed his job on the line. The entire House knows that. It is sick and tired of the manner in which he callously disregards the legitimate claims of those who work in the defence industry and of service personnel.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The whole House appreciates the hon. Gentleman's concern for those in the armed forces, and I know that my constituents will appreciate it. However, will he take the opportunity to apologise to members of the armed forces whose pay was held back by the Labour Government, which meant that it was necessary, as their first act, for the incoming Conservative Government to increase service pay by 32·5 per cent.?

Mr. O'Neill: The selective memory of the hon. Gentleman has probably caused him to forget that it was the Labour Government who instituted the pay review procedures on which the Conservative Government have acted. They have not always, however, acted in respect of the conditions in which service people live. There is a £350 million deficit in the housing budget. There is a £350 million deficit in the programme for the improvement of service housing which is one of the greatest and most legitimate complaints of the armed services. Before the Government start to take credit for paying wages, they should reflect on the conditions in which so many service personnel are having to live.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: No. I want to make some progress. The debate has continued for more than one and a quarter hours, and the Secretary of State's speech took most of that time. I shall take some interventions, but first I shall get under way. We shall then see whether the interventions are relevant.
For the best part of two years, hon. Members on both sides of the House and those in the defence community have advocated a proper defence review. First, there was a clandestine study of the implications of the conventional forces in Europe negotiations. That study finally came out of the closet as "Options for Change". To that was added the implications of the collapse of the Warsaw pact, along with the Treasury's claims for its share of the so-called peace dividend and the lessons to be learnt from Operations Granby and Desert Storm. The outcome was the confusion and muddle that passed for action in the MoD.
The Secretary of State's speech was significant in that he did not deploy the usual diversionary tactics of attacking the Labour party. It is significant that we no longer hear about the impact of suggested Labour cuts on defence employment or the assertion that under a Labour Government we would see rising unemployment in defence centres and the Tories' marginal constituencies. The Government cannot talk of such things during a year in which unemployment in defence marginal constituencies has increased by more than 50 per cent. There were feeble attempts by the Government to conjure up figures for defence cuts while forgetting their own programme, which will result in 30 per cent. cuts in the defence share of gross domestic product from 5 per cent. to 3·5 per cent. between 1985 and 1994.
There was also that usual last gasp of a Tory defence policy, which is the abuse of members of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's family over past membership of disarmament organisations.
These arguments have not been advanced tonight because there has been a different battle to fight, and that is the Secretary of State's battle with Conservative Back-Bench Members. We would have preferred the battle to take place on the hustings rather than in the House. If that had happened, the people outside would have been able to hear once and for all the tired and tarnished thinking of Conservatives on defence.
On taking office, a Labour Government will institute a full and wide-ranging assessment of our defence needs. We shall take account of the roles and responsibilities that we have in mainland Britain, in the north of Ireland, on the


Falkland Islands, in Hong Kong and in Oman, the Caribbean, Cyprus and Belize. Commitments to fellow citizens, dependants, former colonies and friends a re our highest priorities and they must be honoured for as long as that is deemed necessary.
The welcome changes in eastern and central Europe combined with the requirements of the conventional forces in Europe agreement have enabled the announcement of many of the proposals in "Options for Change", and we welcome them. It is not surprising, however, that these go further than the CFE treaty, which was based on the assumption that there would still be a Warsaw pact military structure. Its disappearance, combined with the changes in the former Soviet Union since the failed coup, mean that both the forces ranged in eastern Europe and their deployments have changed. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us how he sees NATO responding to this at the meeting in Rome.
It is important, as part of the western approach, to appreciate the views that are being expressed by the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. I listened to what the Secretary of State said about the possibilities of the Western European Union being used as a sounding block. It is the Opposition's view that the WEU's status has not always been of the highest. We recognise that A may be foolish to try to reinvent the wheel at this stage and that there may be a case for using the WEU as a bridge between the countries of the east and the countries that are not members of the European Community and are still nominally neutral.
It is important that we should listen to countries such as Austria and Sweden. Countries that are not members of the WEU or of the EC might well be included in the listening process. There is a long way to go and it might have been helpful if the Secretary of State—perhaps the Minister of State will be able to do so, if he will pay attention for a moment—had told us of the outcome of the talks that took place yesterday with his French counterpart on this matter. It seems that French co-operation in such a proposal is central. If there is a French veto, it is likely that all the hopeful talk that we have heard this afternoon—we are listening carefully, examining it and not discounting it—will be just so much hot air. That will he the position if the French choose to exercise their veto. There is an ambitious programme and we wait to see what happens. We are keen that it should be successful.
We must recognise the fact that the new democracies in central and eastern Europe do not wish NATO to follow the example of the Warsaw pact. They certainly do not wish NATO to wind itself up; indeed, it can be said that the new democracies wish to join our alliance. I do not think that that is either possible or necessary at present but, above all, the new democracies need to be confident that NATO is aware of their security concerns and, in particular, that the removal of Soviet troops from Germany will continue as planned.
We applaud NATO's decision to afford the armed services of the new democracies training and consultative facilities and we join the Government in welcoming them to our staff colleges and training courses. We hope that increasing numbers from the former Soviet army will be able to sit down with their western counterparts in an attempt to forge real co-operative security in our continent. It would be wrong, however, to blind ourselves to the dangers stemming from the instability in eastern and

central Europe. Germany, the new democracies and the low countries all seek the continued presence of multinational forces in central Europe. The nature of their tasks will differ.
As the Secretary of State said, there is no longer concern about a rapid massed advance from the east. If such a possibility were in prospect, the numbers involved would be far smaller and the warning time far longer. The doctrine of flexible response in nuclear terms is irrelevant in those circumstances, and we welcome recent initiatives from Presidents Bush and Gorbachev that recognise that fact.
The multinational forces, which will still have a major United States component, nevertheless incorporate the concept of a distinct European contribution along the lines of a rapid reaction force, and that is a concept that we support.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman seems to be losing his voice a little. Perhaps he will now reflect on the words on the Order Paper. The first amendment to the motion embodies the unofficial Labour party view and carries his name, calling for further reductions in addition to those proposed in the defence estimates now before us. The second embodies the official Labour party view, as advanced by a number of those on the Opposition Back Benches—the conference's view that spending should initially be cut to the European average but as a first step towards even larger reductions. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what those cuts mean to the brigades and regiments and in terms of Britain's aircraft and ships, instead of waffling on about what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seeks to do in the defence estimates?

Mr. O'Neill: Those remarks illustrate the foolishness of allowing hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) to intervene in the debate. Despite the efforts of this year's Conservative party conference to grope towards democratic debate and discussion, the Conservatives do not properly appreciate how a real political conference operates. [Laughter.] Any political party that is so confident of its own ability to conduct discussion and debate that it will not allow its former leader to speak requires some lessons in democracy.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Dorset, South, let me quote the conference resolution. I think that it will assist the House and allow us to deal with the point once and for all. The statement placed before the conference read:
The next Labour government will make a thorough assessment of the new and changing conditions and relationships in Europe, the Soviet Union and the wider world. Bearing in mind the need to maintain effective national security, this assessment should examine, in particular, Britain's defence roles, responsibilities and commitments—in order to establish, in conjunction with our allies, a fairer share of defence obligations and costs within the NATO Alliance.
That statement was accepted unanimously. I do not know for sure whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates how conference decisions are taken when there is a proper vote and when votes are counted. But when a vote is of such a character as to be unanimous, it cannot be said that one can get a bigger majority. That statement embodies the official policy of the Labour party—that is the policy incorporated in the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friends and me.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: I shall not give way for the moment. Perhaps, at the appropriate moment, I shall let the hon. Gentleman ask his one question. I know what it will be because he always asks the same one. I can never satisfy him on it. We shall just have to leave it at that. As I said, I may give way to the hon. Gentleman if he stays long enough but I know that he sometimes leaves before I have finished speaking.
The multinational forces to which we have referred will be deployed in a different fashion. They will be deployed in a way that will require a far greater degree of flexibility and a far greater degree of professionalism on the part of the troops concerned. The troops in the corps—certainly the British troops—will have to be trained volunteers. It was almost inevitable that Britain would emerge as the candidate to organise such a force. The French are not part of the integrated command structure and they have a predominantly conscripted army. The Germans are in a similar position. Therefore, the co-ordinating role has fallen to Britain.
Equally important to the issue of Britain's co-ordinating role are the size of the corps and its area of operation. In the next day and a half, we must ascertain from the Minister whether we have the forces to provide the two divisions. I share the Select Committee's confidence in
A fully Challenger-equipped Royal Armoured Corps, mechanised and armoured infantry battalions equipped with the most modern AOCs and artillery regiments equipped with AS90 Howitzers and MLRS.
The Secretary of State quoted the Select Committee's report, which illustrated the ability of such an Army to provide an armoured division, although I do not know whether that division will be especially mobile and rapid in its capability to react in some areas. I accept, however, that, as the armoured division of a rapid reaction force, it will be second to none.
I am concerned, however, about the second division —the one based in the United Kingdom. I should like to know today how many of the forces will be reservists. I am led to believe that 80 per cent. of our troops will be regulars, but we have already heard that the figure might be lower than that. Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm this evening whether the figure of 80 per cent. was in the undertaking given and whether it will be achieved.

Mr. Tom King: In due course.

Mr. O'Neill: We will get the figure eventually, although the right hon. Gentleman tells me from a sedentary position that he does not have it tonight. Certainly, it is being suggested that as much as 40 per cent. of the force —rather than the 20 per cent. originally implied—will be made up from the Territorial Army. Apparently, there are to be cuts of between 10,000 and 15,000 in the TA's forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) pointed out, there are grave anxieties about the manner in which some of the TA cuts are to be carried out. Scotland and the northern third of the country generally will be affected. North of Liverpool, there will be no recruitment of paras for the TA. That suggests a strange set of national priorities.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that we are not only talking about

the prospect of lack of recruitment north of the Humber? All the north-east and all of Scotland will be without para units. Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, at present, the units are staffed by young men, many of them unemployed, who find a positive outlet for their energies in society by helping to serve the Crown? In future, they will Miss out on training. They will wind up very disappointed and will be very disillusioned if the proposals are allowed to proceed.

Mr. O'Neill: Few hon. Members would disagree with that, or with the assertion that, in our Territorial Army, we have a tremendous asset. We should be careful to preserve the opportunity for as many of our civilians as possible to serve in the volunteer forces.
I was referring to the question of the rapid reaction corps. In central Europe, we shall have the armoured division and in the United Kingdom we shall have the second division. We have yet to hear any assurances from the Minister that we shall have the proper back-up and logistic support to move the personnel and equipment.
In its report on Operation Granby, the Defence Committee noted that the proportion of personnel deployed to the Gulf effectively destroyed BAOR's operational capability, that 95 per cent. of the Royal Corps of Transport personnel were deployed on operations in the Gulf and that all of RAF Germany's support helicopters were committed to Operation Granby. On 10 July the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence:
I think all observers in the Gulf know there was considerable scope for improvement both in the manning levels of the individual units involved under their peacetime establishments and arrangements and also in the quality, reliability and much of the equipment thinly spread".
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cuts will enable that process to be achieved and the improvement to be made by 1994? In his closing remarks to the House, the Secretary of State outlined a timetable that would take us to 1997. As I understand it, the rapid reaction corps will have to be at least notionally ready by 1994–95. There seem to be a number of gaps over the following two years and we can only hope that the warning time will be about two or three years instead of the seven to 14-day time scale under which we were previously operating.
Logistical support from the merchant marine is as important as the Army. No one in the House can be satisfied with the news that the General Council of British Shipping register has been abandoned and that future statistics in that area will simply be guesstimates. The Government must realise that there is widespread scepticism throughout NATO and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe of the ability of many contributors to the rapid reaction force to get their troops and equipment to specified places at specified times and in the right numbers.
Assuming that the United Kingdom can overcome those difficulties, we must still address the problem that arose in operation Granby where our dependence on United Kingdom flagged ships was almost non-existent with only 10 of the 146 voyages to Europe and the Gulf being made by British registered ships. While we may be concerned about getting there, we still have problems with the size of the Army. What tasks and commitments will have to be forsaken to assume the new responsibilities given the targeted size? On what basis was it decided to cut the number of battalions to 38?
The documents contain a list of criteria. I have spoken to fairly high ranking regimental officers who have written to Ministers. They were told that they were not to be informed about the way in which the criteria were to be applied because that would not be in the interests of national security. We questioned Ministers about recruitment and retention figures and were told that those figures do not exist centrally and are not collected centrally. We were told that it would probably be too expensive to write letters seeking those figures. British Telecom's charges may prevent telephone calls being made to ascertain those figures, but the Post Office is still reasonably cheap if one is prepared to wait a couple of weeks and use a second class stamp.
The figures are essential if we are to have a sensible discussion and debate. The Secretary of State should be prepared to provide the House with a breakdown of the number of battalions and regiments that each of our new commitments will require. If he is not prepared to do that, he must recognise that many people inside and outside the services will be left without a proper explanation.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that service morale has suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of his refusal to provide a proper explanation of Government policies? What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that operational units will not require additional personnel to be drafted in from other units as happened in the Gulf? What were the criteria for the amalgamations? Why does the Secretary of State refuse to publish the information behind the criteria? What security purpose is served by keeping that information confiden-tial? What was the significance of the recruitment and retention figures in the process?
Hon. Members have already explained how their regiments have good recruitment and retention records. The figures are beginning to appear in a piecemeal fashion. Why were they not collected centrally? Will the Secretary of State confirm that one regiment which is unscathed by the process will be going to Northern Ireland short of 100 men because of a reduction in numbers and that the numbers are being made up by drawing in one of the Scottish regiments that is due to lose its independence? The Secretary of State for Defence takes a close interest in Northern Ireland matters. Will he confirm the information that I received last week from a senior serving officer whose name I will naturally not give? Apparently, there is anxiety and frustration in his regiment because 100 men are being taken from it to be sent to Northern Ireland in another regiment simply because one of the regiments that is unscathed in the process does not have the proper complement of forces.
I am sure that the charge that I have made today will be repeated in months to come by other hon. Members whose regiments will experience the anger of the men in those regiments. The men do not object to receiving orders, but if they do not like the orders, they appreciate the courtesy of being told why they are required to do something.
When "Options for Change" and the CFE processes were emerging, we drew a distinction between the need for changes in regimental structure and the need to retain a regimental system in which local recruitment, tradition and morale could be sustained. Throughout our history, the structure has been continually adjusted to meet changing defence requirements. At no time have I or my Opposition Front Bench colleagues supported cam-paigners wishing to save this or that particular regiment

after the statement made on 23 July. It ill behoves those of us who broadly support the "Options for Change" process to begin to play politics with the fortunes of one regiment as opposed to another. That does not help the debate and that is why we have told people who have made representations to us that we are not backing a particular regiment.
Nevertheless, I understand the frustration and anguish expressed by so many officers. The Secretary of State has denied that the chief of staff was responsible for the dirty work. The Secretary of State admitted that it was his decision on the basis of information and advice that he received. As I understand it, the Secretary of State was also a party to the Army Board. I may be wrong so perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm the membership of that board. I believe that it comprises the three chiefs of staff and the Chief of the General Staff and that it makes recommendations. As I understand it, the Defence Ministers in this House and the one in the other place also sit on the board. It invariably has a majority of Government politicians. Am I right? Are not the Government well represented and do they not have sufficient votes to achieve a majority if they so wish? The board does not act as a democratic body; it seeks to reach a consensus. However, with five political masters on the board, I imagine that it would be easy for them to achieve a consensus at least among themselves if not among the armed services.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. I commend to all hon. Members the booklet entitled "The Ministry of Defence." It sets everything out clearly. It states that the Army Board comprises five Ministers—two Ministers of State, two Under-Secretaries and myself as chairman—four Army members and the second permanent under-secretary. It has four uniformed members and one senior civil servant. They are advised, and recommendations come forward from the executive committee of the Army Board. The Chief of the General Staff is chairman and these are non-ministerial board members, together with the respective assistant chiefs of staff—therefore in uniform —whom no Ministers approach.

Mr. O'Neill: I do not think that that contradicts what I have said. There is a clear Government majority on the board. At the end of the day the Government get what they want. It remains to be seen whether or not the chiefs of staff are prepared to go along with that—certainly if we are to believe what appeared in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times. Over the years, the right hon. Gentleman has been one of the greatest defenders of national security, one of the greatest opponents of leaks, and one who has never countenanced the consideration of a leak. However, when a leak falls not into the hands of an Opposition Member but into the hands of a sympathetic newspaper it seems to be acceptable. We have not heard any criticism of the leaks or about a full search being carried out to call individuals to account. We wonder whose fingerprints are on the letter.
In defence debates we are almost in danger of forgetting the personal consequences of "Options for Change" for service men and their families—people who will be forced out of work and into a most inhospitable economic climate in the middle of a recession with spiralling unemployment and hundreds of people chasing every job. Redundant


soldiers are surely entitled to more than 28 days' training and their families are entitled to assurances on accommodation. We wait with interest for the next bone to be thrown by the Minister of State. The Government have been reluctant to hand over some of their housing stock to local authorities. It is some months—indeed it is almost a year—since the Secretary of State was in Devonport. The houses in Plymouth that have lain empty for some years are not yet in the public domain. So far there has been little attempt to provide assistance to local authorities or properly to fund housing associations.
That is not a matter of party contention. Over the years, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has raised it in successive defence and services debates. We look forward to hearing clear assurances that homelessness among ex-service personnel will stop in the near future as a result of tonight's announcement. The figures that were produced today by the Rowntree Trust make it clear that the number of service personnel in irregular occupancy of services accommodation—a polite way of saying squatting, whether or not they pay rent—increased from 760 in 1986 to 1,630 in 1990. That is an increase of more than 100 per cent. in four years.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the anguish involved in redundancies, both services and industrial, as a result of the defence cuts. How many tens of thousands of service personnel and defence industry employees would lose their jobs if a Labour Government were elected?

Mr. O'Neill: The numbers who will lose their jobs and the numbers who will leave the services will be determined by sensible arrangements. They will be determined by a far more caring Government than the party which presently holds office.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On my hon. Friend's sensible point, would he like to comment on the fact that, at present, Army families are in real difficulty? Those who are looking for accommodation are not only suffering tremendous social stress—many marriages are at risk—but they are finding it impossible to find alternative accommodation. Also, many building societies will not even offer them mortgages because they do not have jobs. The debate should be about the conditions of existing members of the forces as well as those who will be forced into that intolerable position in future.

Mr. O'Neill: We know that great assistance could be provided for service personnel. We know that support and training could be arranged very quickly. We look forward to hearing what Ministers have to say on this issue in the run-up to the general election.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: No, I am sorry. I have five minutes left. The Secretary of State took more than an hour to make his remarks. I have given way on several occasions.

Mr. Cormack: rose——

Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, but I am not giving way any more. I am conscious of the strictures of the House, and

other hon. Members wish to speak. The Secretary of State took a long time. I am going as fast as I can. I have given several opportunities to respond.
We must provide a positive response to the initiatives of Gorbachev and Bush. We must also seek to assist in the process of inspection and verification of the reciprocal disarmament arrangements that have been announced. In particular, there must be speedy agreement to guarantee the verifiability of the removal of all sub-strategic and tactical nuclear weapons from ships and submarines. Such is the complexity of the task that work must begin immediately. Given the good will and trust now emerging, the task is not insuperable, but it has great significance for troop concentrations in the Kola peninsula and for the anxiety of people in Norway. Norway is more than preoccupied with the enormous Soviet capability on its borders.
We need to know the Government's attitude to plans to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. Our am-phibious capability appears to be extremely expensive to maintain. How do the Government propose to reinforce Norway if an exigency were to arise in the near future? On the wider shipbuilding front, we need clear assurances that, when the tendering process is completed and orders are placed, work will start as quickly as possible.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: No, I am sorry.

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About half an hour ago, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that he would give way to me at the appropriate time. He has mentioned warship building, and he has also said that he hopes to finish soon. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask him to honour his pledge.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is almost 7 o'clock, when speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. O'Neill: On warship building, the dependence of large communities on that work and communities beyond them, because 65 per cent. of all——

Mr. Franks: rose——

Mr. O'Neill: I should like your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am working against the clock. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neill: I mention the shipbuilding industry because it is important not only for one constituency but for other constituencies all over the country which are not even beside the sea and depend upon that industry. I make it clear that the Government's glib assurances that the Americans will continue to provide them with the technology and the means whereby they will fulfil their ambitions in respect of the tactical air-to-surface missile are doubtful, given that the American Government have abandoned support for the Boeing project. Perhaps we may hear whether there will be some support for either the French or the Martin-Marietta programmes which are still going on and how we will be able to get our nuclear air-launched systems.
So far we have had only an introduction to the debate on this issue, but tonight's debate would not have taken place if we had had a general election—[Interruption.] Tonight's debate would not have taken place if we had had a June election because we would not have had the White Paper and there would be no "Options for Change". The debate has clearly shown that the Government are running away from the issues and from the truth. They are refusing to provide the information that the House, the country and the armed services need if they are to have a proper debate. We shall wait until tomorrow to give the Government our opinion when I shall call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of our amendent.

7 pm

Mr. Julian Amery: Odd as it may seem, this is the first occasion on which we have been able to discuss the Gulf war which preoccupied us so much last summer. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having put it so much on the agenda of today's debate. It was, of course, a great victory in every sense. It succeeded, it cost very little in terms of casualties, and our allies paid a large part of the financial bill, which is an important point. As a former Secretary of State for Air, I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I say that it was also an outstanding demonstration of our air power. Air power dominated the scene, punching a way through the enemy lines and pulverising the population behind the lines. It would seem a justification for the erection of a statue to "Bomber" Harris.
But what a melancholy conclusion: the ceasefire. My right hon. Friend touched on that point, but did not go into it. It was, of course, an American decision. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should have suggested in an article that it was due to air force morale. Having served in the ranks of the Royal Air Force during the war, and having been its political chief later, I do not for one moment believe that that is true. My right hon. Friend is a novelist in his spare time, so perhaps he was picking up the pen of fiction rather than of statesmanship.
The failure to follow through has been disastrous and I find it difficult to understand. I cannot understand how a President of the United States, once head of the CIA, could not, in the four or five months before the final blow was struck, have prepared an Iraqi Government to take over in Baghdad. That is incomprehensible to me. Yes, it would have been a commitment, but let us consider the cost of not making that commitment.
In the first phase after the ceasefire, there was the massacre of Shias and Kurds. That has now been renewed with a second round of massacres while Saddam Hussein struts on the stage—no doubt as a hero to many young Arabs in other parts of the middle east. My right hon. Friend has produced some alarming evidence of how far Saddam Hussein's military programme has advanced in terms of missiles and unconventional equipment. Are we quite sure that we have got to the bottom of it? We could be faced with a nasty surprise if he suddenly decided to bring down the pillars of the temple.
However, the worst immediate consequence for us has been the decline in the authority of the west following the ceasefire. The Saudis have been reluctant to let the RA F or the American air force return to their bases. We have seen them making trouble about stockpiles. Syria is rearming

—and Syria and Israel multiply the difficulties facing the peace conference. That is a sign of the decline in the authority that the west, and, above all, the Americans, enjoyed for a moment after our victory.
All that provides some important lessons for the conference at Maastricht in a few weeks' time. We all know that if we are to put together the massive economic and financial interests that are represented by the European Community, which will extend if we expand the Community, it would be madness not to have some system to defend those interests. That is essential. The purpose of foreign and defence policy is to protect and to promote one's interests.
The Gulf war provides us with yet another lesson. Europe's interests in the Gulf were greater than those of America, but we could not have carried out the campaign without the Americans. We must take on board the fact that it is not a question of arms or money, because we had enough arms and enough money to do it: we did not have the will. I am afraid that the Yugoslav crisis underlines that point again. Our French friends may be right when they say that the Americans will withdraw from Europe and that we must therefore become more self-reliant. They are right to point out that NATO is limited by its charter and is unable to defend our interests outside its area. However, we have a long way to go before we can think of doing without the Americans.
French defence and foreign policy is now at a crossroads. For a long time—from de Gaulle's time onwards—the French thought that they were the jockey and that the Germans were the horse, but the horse and the jockey together took quite a fall when the hurdle—the Berlin wall—suddenly disappeared. Perhaps the lunch that Mr. Dumas gave the other day will be seen as a turning point by historians.
France should now join us in working for a global alliance of Europe, the United States and Japan. But it is not easy to put together a brand new structure when we are all busy cutting commitments, so perhaps we had better get on with what we have got. The Western European Union is still growing and, although NATO is declining, it still exists, so we had better make the best of it while we can. After all, as we should never forget, it has a Turkish wing that provides us with a window on the middle east.
In the early part of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained how the threat had greatly diminished as a result of events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Although it was not clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), I understand that the Labour party believes that we should have a bigger peace dividend because there is a much smaller threat. Since I became a Member of the House in 1950, we have taken up arms four times—in Korea, Suez, the Falklands and the Gulf. None of those campaigns was expected, so the general staffs had no plans for coping with them. We should all remember that fact and bear in mind that next time we may again be faced with the unexpected.
Another question is whether my right hon. Friend has got it right. Have we got the strength that we need? I was a junior Minister in 1957 when we had the Duncan Sandys White Paper, when we amalgamated regiments and markedly cut the strength of our Army. Nothing would induce me to return to the agony that resulted from that amalgamation. As my right hon. Friend knows only too well, it is a painful and agonising task. I should like to make just one observation: when we cut our strength in


1957, we were dealing with a mainly conscript Army. We are now dealing with an entirely professional Army. When we were living in the world of a conscript Army, it was not all that difficult to rebuild our Army and to fill its gaps. I am, therefore, a little unhappy when my right hon. Friend says, "It will be all right because so many of our battalions are under strength." It seems rather a criticism of his own stewardship. If we could not fill the battalions when we had a large number of men, are we sure that we shall be able to do so when we have fewer? It is not clear to me.
At the end of the day it depends on our opinion of ourselves. Do we see ourselves as a Scandinavian power in the old sense—the Swedes have changed, but previously countries such as Denmark said that they would not fight —or do we see ourselves as a purely European power or as a European power which must still have a global responsibility?
I have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this question: putting his hand on his heart, can he say to us, "Yes, we could cope with another Falklands operation; yes, we could cope with another Gulf operation"? If he cannot, he had better get back to the drawing board.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It must surely have occurred to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is a certain paradox in the fact that this evening's annual debate on the defence estimates is much more controversial than usual, on an occassion when it might have been thought that there was much to celebrate. In the first place, we can claim with some justification that the cold war has ended. We can certainly recognise the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the constitutional dismembering of the Soviet Union. We can celebrate the fact that there now appears to be a far greater opportunity for reductions in stocks of nuclear weapons than ever before. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) hinted a moment ago, we can make proper acknowledgment of the stunning feat of arms in the Gulf. So why is it that those elements have not provided a backdrop to the debate against which we might have had an informed and responsible debate about how best to meet Britain's defence and security needs in the foreseeable future?
We can obtain some illustration of why the debate has been so controversial if we examine the terms of the Select Committee's report on the defence estimates. Although the Secretary of State made a brave effort to blunt some of the criticisms, they remain formidable. The report records what the Select Committee thought of the document with which the debate deals.
In paragraph 2.1 of its report the Committee says:
Anyone buying 'the White Paper' in order to discover the strategic rationale for the changes proposed would be sadly disappointed. What 'the White Paper' regrettably fails to do, and does not even set out to do, is to argue in any detail the rationale behind the changes proposed, or to provide a coherent strategic overview".
A little later, in paragraph 2.3, the Committee says:
There remains a yawning gap between shared perceptions of what has changed and the role of British armed forces in the new order".
I cannot imagine that the Committee would have seen fit to make those judgments in the form in which they appear in the report unless it felt that they were justified.
In many quarters there has been an over-optimistic expectation about the immediate financial savings which may be obtained from a reduction in both arms and men. In the longer term, such savings will undoubtedly be available, but in the shorter term they cannot be assumed. Lower force levels will demand better trained, better equipped and better paid regular troops. Fewer regulars will mean that reserve forces must be adequate in numbers and in their turn better trained, better equipped and better rewarded.
If I may introduce a somewhat parochial note, I shall be writing to the Secretary of State about my visit to HMS Camperdown, a shore installation of the Royal Navy Reserve in Dundee. Several of my constituents are members of it. I intend to put to him some of the points that I gleaned from that visit.
The increasing sophistication of equipment must mean that the replacement of existing equipment, even at lower levels, may require proportionately greater expenditure in the short term. We should never forget that the peace dividend is peace itself. But, along with that, we can assuredly retain the objective of substantial reductions in defence expenditure. The effective end of the cold war means that we do not require to retain the same number of men and women under arms or the same levels of equipment. But, against all that, the overriding principle must be the proper funding of a defence and security policy which reflects what most acknowledge as Britain's diminished role in the world and the diminished threat to our security.
Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said, I still believe that the Government would be well advised to institute a full-scale defence review. It would necessarily involve political judgments about the obligations and responsibilities of the United Kingdom in defence and security, both domestic and international. It would involve military judgments about how best to meet those responsibilities. Lastly, it would involve a financial judgment about the resources which would need to be found to provide the military means by which the obligations would be discharged.
Policy ought to be dictated by the outcome of such a defence review. It is legitimate to have financial aspirations and objectives as long as they are subordinate to the policy considerations that emerge after careful, rigorous and even intellectual analysis of both the actual and the potential threat.
The continuing existence of NATO for the foreseeable future is not inconsistent with my belief—nor, indeed, that of the Secretary of State, if accounts of yesterday's meeting are to be accepted—that a European defence policy will ultimately evolve in some form or another. The inevitability of that has been underlined by recent events, not least the initiative recently launched by the British and Italian Governments to which the Secretary of State referred.
We should make it clear that we value and expect the continued commitment of the United States and Canada to Europe, but that equally we are aware that the level of resources which each may be able to devote to Europe is likely to fall substantially in real terms and perhaps in relative terms, too. One cannot ignore the fact that the continuing budget deficit in the United States will be a powerful consideration in that regard. There will inevitably be a need for Europe to assume a greater degree of responsibility in such matters.
I believe that Britain should continue to have the protection of a nuclear deterrent for as long as other nations have nuclear weapons. The proposals and counter-proposals of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev make it clear that we may be on the brink of substantial reductions in nuclear weapons, but it is important to draw a distinction between unilateral reductions and unilateral renunciation. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev are offering the former, but I am not yet aware that they seek to offer the latter.
I remain committed to the view that four submarines are necessary in order to maintain the deterrent effect of Trident at all times. But I part company with the Secretary of State—as he perhaps anticipates, because we have exchanged views on the matter many times—in his view that it is necessary that the D5 Trident system should be deployed with a total number of warheads which, if some reports are to be believed, would be three times the level of warheads on Polaris, which it is to replace.
The Secretary of State properly referred to minimum deterrence. He and I must read the same reports because he used the definition of it as the sort of deterrence that would be seen by an adversary as capable of producing unacceptable levels of destruction. That is rather a chilling phrase, but I think that we all know what it means. I cannot believe that a four-boat Trident system with the same number of warheads as Polaris would not be regarded by an adversary as capable of producing unacceptable levels of destruction.
May I briefly say—you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am constrained by time—that I do not believe that there is a case for the United Kingdom to acquire a tactical air-to-surface missile with a nuclear warhead. There may be a case—I put it no more strongly than that—for the allies to have such a weapon, but I can see no justification for the United Kingdom to seek to deploy such a system.
I come to the matter of infantry battalions, with which I suspect that many of the speeches from now on will almost exclusively deal. We must maintain sufficient battalions to meet our obligations. There is increasingly strong opinion—although I accept that the Secretary of State has a case to make against it—that a reduction in the Army to a force of 116,000 will not permit us to maintain our infantry battalions at the necessary level. Some Members will argue later the case for the Scottish regiments on geographical or even sentimental grounds. I do not discount the power of such things in the minds of many people, but the real argument, which the Secretary of State has been unable so far successfully to challenge, is that seven infantry battalions for Scotland are necessary to ensure that the obligations that are likely to be placed on the British Army can be discharged. I make one final plea for the 15th Para TA battalion. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that Scotland should have no parachute unit whatever, whether territorial or regular. The Secretary of State should take that away and think about it again.

Mr. Michael Mates: The White Paper appeared on 9 July and the Secretary of State courteously and promptly came to see the Select Committee the next day. We agreed our report on 24 July, the day after the publication of the detailed proposals on the Army. The Committee will examine those proposals in

the greatest detail in the coming weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give information on how the decisions were reached, even if some of it must be in confidence. I have not had a chance to consult my colleagues about this, but I am sure that I speak for them when I say that we shall want to know how these highly controversial decisions were reached. I hope that there will not be a quarrel about this.
From a substantial report I shall draw just three points to the attention of the House, in particular to the attention of my right hon. Friend. First, there is a need for a thorough review of the social security rules as they apply to service personnel and their families. In particular, there is a need for an urgent review of the decision not to make retrospective the waiver of the residence qualification for severe disablement allowance. That would leave unqualified to receive the allowance severely disabled personnel and their dependants who have served for long periods abroad. That cannot be right.
My second point concerns the value of laying down basic principles under which the Ministry of Defence and the services carry out humanitarian work, so that the rather unhappy episode of contracting out Royal Engineers to clear mines in Kuwait will not be repeated. Thirdly, there is a need for an on-going programme of base closures and reductions to be properly conducted, and for announcements to be accompanied with details of costs and savings. That cannot be said to be a description of how the naval support review was conducted. When announcements were made, they were by barely informative written answers. From figures now provided it is clear that annual savings from the measures proposed so far are minimal and will run at about only £30 to £40 million a year. That is nowhere near the sort of sums that we were led to believe were being sought. Further announcements are obviously pending and the House and its Committees are entitled to proper facts and figures.
In July the Committee also completed its work on the preliminary lessons of Operation Granby, which was published as our tenth report. As we record, we made two highly informative visits to the Gulf in November and March. As we also record, the principal lesson was the overriding value of the skill, dedication and courage of individual service men and women. To that I would add their versatility and flexibility.
As our report sets out to be no more than a preliminary survey, we must advise caution against leaping to conclusions. I would now emphasise only three points while commending the report to the House. The first is the crucial contribution made by years of NATO training and exercising. The war was won primarily by NATO forces operating NATO procedures. The second is the need for thorough examination of the way in which reserve forces were and were not used. The Committee called for several specific points to be addressed in the current working up of proposals for the future of reserve forces and I hope that they will be, before my right hon. Friend announces his conclusions. The third point is the significance of the degree of dependence on non-United Kingdom ships and aircraft for transporting stores to the Gulf and back—a subject which has often been raised. That must be explicitly addressed by the Ministry of Defence in its analysis of Granby, as the Committee recommends.
In our fourth report we published a generally favourable overview of six major projects on which we had already published detailed reports earlier in this


Parliament. That is a demonstration of our determination to maintain a continuing watching brief over the Ministry's procurement performance and to show that we are not always being critical.
Our seventh report continued our scrutiny of MOD's procurement of helicopters, particularly of the EH101 Merlin. Since we reported, MOD has awarded a prime contract to IBM/Westland, and a first production batch of 44 is now expected. I am sure that we all welcome the award and hope that the steps towards full production can now be hastened. I have, however, two points which I hope that the Minister will feel able to answer at the end of the debate, because they will be of some general interest.
First, the Government's helpful reply to our report, which we published today, refers in several places to changes to the aircraft from the capabilities specified in the original staff requirement, in addition to the decision to reduce the original reliability and maintainability requirements. What are these principal changes and what in broad terms will they mean for Merlin's capabilities? Secondly, we warned at paragraph 54 that
It would not be sensible for MoD to keep within its budgeted overall cost by artificially reducing the number of helicopters to be ordered.
Several officials told us that the changes in the size of the surface fleet would not affect orders. In February one official told us that:
The numbers are really not reducible.
Yet the Government's reply refers to 44 being enough to introduce Merlins on
type 23 frigates and one carrier".
Does that mean that type 22 frigates will not carry Merlin as originally envisaged? Why have the numbers fallen from 50 to 44?
That is a quick gallop through some Select Committee points as I am caught by the 10-minute speech limit. I shall now make some remarks on my own behalf.
My right hon. Friend faces difficulties with "Options for Change". First, we should put the "Options for Change" argument, particularly that about infantry battalions, into perspective. It is at the margin of huge changes that have taken place in all three services. Because it is at the margin I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a little room for manoeuvre. It is not as if we are saying that he should restore all the Navy cuts or all the RAF squadrons that are to be reduced for the reasons which have been examined and found to be, broadly speaking, acceptable. We are simply asking whether we have got the reduction in the number of infantry battalions right, given our commitments and the fact that the present size of the corps of infantry is and has been in the past years thoroughly overstretched in carrying out those commitments. That has had an effect on recruiting, retention, morale and all the other aspects which are so crucial to the well being of the infantry.
It would not be right for me as Chairman of the Select Committee to enter into the various arguments about individual battalions. Of course the Scots are upset, as are the Cheshires, the Staffords and others, but there are others who may not have articulated their upset so loudly —the Royal Anglians, the Queen's and my county regiment of Hampshire. If we focus the debate just on that, we shall probably not get the right answer. The important question to ask is whether 38 infantry battalions are

enough to do the job. In July I put that specific question to the Secretary of State and he gave me the specific answer that the Army Board was content that that number was enough and could give the advice that had been demanded.
It is extraordinary that 15 months ago when the initial figures for "Options for Change" were issued the answer —it could only have been a guess—was 116,000 for the Army. Since then, look what has happened. There have been lessons, but not one figure has changed. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider, not the individual regiments, which are rightly a matter for the executive committee of the Army Board, but the numbers. I beg him perhaps to consider the lessons of Granby and the fact that there will be much more overstretch just to maintain the commitments in Northern Ireland, Belize and Cyprus, or else to say that we cannot manage Belize and Cyprus any more. That is an option which would make a certain amount of sense of the present cuts.
I beg him to reconsider the figures and to return to his remarks that the cuts are not Treasury-led. If they are not Treasury-led but are Defence-led, a good look, as we tried to take in our report, at the commitments dispassionately —not looking at Scotland or anywhere else—should tell my right hon. Friend, as it has told me and all my colleagues, that we shall run a bit short, that the proposal is a bit tight and that we shall have difficulty in managing all our commitments with the proposed arrangements. Therefore, I ask him to make a small change at the edge of the whole panoply of "Options for Change" which would not only allow the infantry to breathe a little more comfortably and inevitably help with morale, recruiting and so on, but would turn away some of the anger which is naturally coming from some of my hon. Friends whose counties, regiments and their histories are being affected.

Dr. John Gilbert: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) who, in the latter half of his speech, made many points with which I agreed, and I am grateful to him for making them.
When the Secretary of State was describing develop-ments in the Soviet Union—and I appreciate that he was under pressure of time—he mentioned the acceleration in the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the former allied territories in eastern and central Europe. There were many other matters, some positive and some negative, that he did not mention, but which are of some significance. One of the more positive matters is that those forces may now be taken further east than was originally intended. It is possible that they will end up not just east of the Polish-Ukrainian border, but east of the border between the republic of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. That leads to many questions. Will there be any central forces for the former Soviet Union? We know that there will be a Ukrainian army and that Ukraine has declared its independence. If it is to have its own armed forces, sovereign and independent, will they be stationed to defend all of Ukraine's borders? Will they be stationed on the border between the Ukraine and the Russian Federation? Will they be facing east?
What will happen to the non-nuclear central assets of the former Soviet Union? What will happen to the Black sea fleet? Apparently, the Ukrainians are saying privately that they will have the Black sea fleet. They certainly have the only serviceable port from which the Black sea fleet can


operate. However, the Russian Federation may take a different view, and it is in that context that Mr. Yeltsin has spoken of restoring previous boundaries between the republic of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. If the assets of the Black sea fleet are to be broken up, presumably the new republic of Georgia will want to have a say in the disposition.
Many other questions need to be answered in determining British defence strategy. Will the Vilnius area be demobilised? Is that enclave of the former Soviet Union now wholly cut off from the rest of the territory of the Soviet Union? I take it that it is now a part of the Russian Federation. It used to contain important bases for the Baltic fleet, but reports now suggest that the Vilnius area will be demobilised.
How much will the individual republics be prepared to pay towards the maintenance of a central defence capability? Of course, all such contributions will have to come on top of the costs to them of maintaining their new, sovereign, national forces. What will be the attitude of the republics to the CFE process—something to which they were not party? The Secretary of State said nothing about that. It is possible that the results of the CFE process will be in jeopardy because of developments within the Soviet Union.
For once, I can say that in the previous defence debate I predicted something that appears to be coming true. I always thought it possible that on the territory of the former Soviet Union more than one nuclear-capable, sovereign state would emerge. It appears that, at the very least, there may be three or more. The Ukraine says that eventually it wants to be nuclear free, but that for the time being it wants to keep nuclear weapons on its territory and have a say in how they will be used. Kazakhstan has said unambiguously that it wants to keep the weapons and have title to them. It does not want to share control. We do not yet know what the attitude of the authorities in Belorussiya will be to nuclear weapons on their territory.
Lest anyone thinks that those are minor matters, I should add that only last week the Moscow press published a report of a secret analysis by the KGB of its concern about where future control arrangements for nuclear weapons on the territory of the Soviet Union would reside. Those are matters of the very greatest concern to us all. It is one reason why, I regret to say, we should not lower our guard. Of course, the reductions in the nuclear inventories that President Bush announced are very helpful, and the response of President Gorbachev is equally helpful. I always thought that negotiations and haggling over nuclear inventories and the attempts to achieve parity over the range of individual weapons systems were a waste of time. It has always been my view that either of the super-powers could unilaterally reduce its inventories of nuclear warheads by about 80 per cent. without any loss of individual security—and that is still my view. I am glad to say that, at least in this part of my speech, I can endorse the Government's policy of maintaining a strategic nuclear capability with the Trident system——

Mr. Dick Douglas: Four boats.

Dr. Gilbert: Yes, four boats. We shall also need one air launch system. Having seen some of the developments in Washington recently, I think that we will need to make a decision quickly on whether to go along with an

Anglo-French system. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate. I do not dissent from the decision to eliminate the nuclear depth bombs, but I should be interested to know how we will take out submarines of the Typhoon or Oscar classes without the assistance of nuclear depth bombs.
Possibly more important than the developments in the former Soviet Union is the continuing expansion of ballistic missile capability in other countries, and especially—although not exclusively—in the middle east. I want briefly to touch on the missile technology control regime—the MTCR—because it is potentially—and I emphasise "potentially"—one of the most healthy developments for us all. My briefing from our admirable Library shows that India, Israel, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are maintaining their programmes and their momentum. It was thought that several other countries were dropping theirs, including Argentina and South Korea. However, I read recently that both Syria and Iran intend to acquire a new manufacturing capability for much longer-range ballistic missiles than they currently possess. It is imperative that the MTCR is widened and better enforced. Of course, it is not a treaty, and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that is because of Trident. Is it true that if the MTCR were a treaty, we would no longer be able to receive Trident missile technology or the missiles themselves from the United States?
I wish to raise only one other matter, and it is something on which I dissent from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I do not envisage in the foreseeable future, and nor would I recommend to the House, the development of a unified defence capability, let alone unified defence decision-making with the countries of the European Community. When we look at the history of the past few years—the Falklands, Iraq, and Yugoslavia—we should consider ourselves fortunate that the House was capable of taking sovereign decisions without having to consult the other countries of Europe—such as Belgium, which would not sell us its ammunition, and Germany, which said that we should send our troops but it would not send its own forces.
The way ahead is through defence procurement. In that way, we can achieve better efficiency at lower cost, and without having to subordinate our decision-making powers that, I am glad to say, repose in this House.

Sir Ian Stewart: I am particularly glad to follow the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) in his concluding remarks, in which he made several important points. He referred also to the rapidly changing background against which the decisions that we are debating today must be taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and the Army Board in particular, had many extremely difficult decisions to take, and I do not envy them the task that confronted them.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that this debate was abnormal in that it lacked any references to Opposition defence policies. However, it is fair to remember that the great reduction in tension between the east and the west and the collapse of the Warsaw pact would not have occurred had we listened to


the continued advocacy of the Labour party and of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to abandon Britain's nuclear capability and to avoid the disposition of cruise missiles in this country—which gave a lead to the rest of Europe and undoubtedly contributed directly to the Soviet Union's acceptance that the arms race was one that it could never win, and that the deterrents we were able to keep in place were something that it could never outbid. Had it not been for the British Government's resolve under a Conservative leadership, we might well not have had the debate that we are having now.
It is not surprising that the Army has been chief among the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have a unified structure, and the regimental system has aroused particular concern and the emotions of right hon. and hon. Members—not least because of geographi-cal associations and historical loyalties that regiments carry with them.
It is right that the regimental system is to be preserved. Even if reductions must be made, we ought to remember that the regimental system is the bedrock of the Army. It is unique to the British Army, and is one of the factors that make it more efficient, effective, dedicated, and exceptionally successful than any other army in the western world. That is something of which we can be proud.
I will illustrate the difficulties that confront my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a way that I hope will allow me also to bend his ear. My Hertfordshire constituency comes within the area of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which is being reduced from three battalions to two. However, the Royal Anglians must still cover no fewer than nine separate counties—Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and Lincolnshire. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least feel able to retain the Royal Anglians' three voluntary battalions. Even in areas where recruitment has not been so good, there is nevertheless a tremendous reservoir of available reserves, which can be an important element in maintaining overall potential numbers at a time when the number of regular battalions is being reduced.
My other particular example is that of the Royal Scots, and not just because it is my son's regiment. The Royal Scots is the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army. Is such an institution simply to be allowed to disappear? It is difficult to understand, on the basis of recruitment and retention, how a regiment of that kind and distinction can be selected for amalgamation. If there is to be any reconsideration and reprieves, I hope that the Royal Scots will be number one on the list. I trust that, at the very least, it will be able to retain its name and its title as a royal regiment, and not lose them in some wishy-washy general phrase, to apply to the Royal Scots and to the King's Own Scottish Borderers—two very proud and ancient Scottish regiments.
I mentioned those two regiments not only because of my own interest in them but because they illustrate part of the remaining task that lies before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues—to treat with the utmost sensitivity the issues raised by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about regiments in their own areas.
It is the attachment of geographical loyalties to recruitment, and to performance in situations of war, that has given the British Army its tremendous flexibility and success. We have seen that time and again.
My right hon. Friend will have to make his decisions about overall numbers on a gradual basis. He cannot take a decision today and say that it will be absolutely right for an indefinite number of years ahead. We do not know what developments are to come in Europe—let alone in the whole of the middle east and in other parts of the world. We do not know what will be the reactions of our allies and of our colleagues in the coalition forces in the Gulf. We do not know what lies ahead for those who might be alongside our forces in any joint action to which our country may contribute.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will judge matters as they progress, and that it will be seen as a sign of strength on his part, not of weakness, if he finds, in the light of circumstances, that changes should be made. My right hon. Friend said that he will keep his decisions and plans under review, and that adjustments could be made if need be. I hope that that commitment means exactly what it seems.
I hope also that we will be able to maintain the commitments that have been made even with the Army's lower numbers. I share my right hon. Friend's anxieties about Northern Ireland—not in respect of overall numbers, but on the frequency with which particular regiments may be sent to serve in the Province. The Northern Ireland commitment is a major part of the British Army's overall commitment. When I visited Berlin a few years ago, I found that the three battalions there regarded their time in Berlin as a period of training and recuperation. That commitment is to go, and may be substituted by one that is much more demanding. We must be concerned all the time about the danger of overstretching our forces.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Dudley, East that it is essential to maintain our individual voice and decision-making ability in the commitment of our forces. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which all the members of the European Community—whose national interests in respect of foreign affairs often differ materially, and whose defence interests differ even more—are likely, in the emergency circumstances that usually trigger the need for military operations, to come to a rapid, decisive, clear-cut, and effective decision. It is not that I resent the European Community; it is in many respects a most useful body. However, it is totally unsuitable for the purposes of defence. The idea of putting military decisions through the EC process of endless horse trading goes against all practical considerations of military success.
I hope that we shall play a continuing role in Europe, in the United Nations and in any informal groupings of nations that come together for defence and military purposes. I hope that we shall not be ashamed of playing a leading if not necessarily a dominant role. Very often the actions of the British armed forces and the decisions of the British Government have stimulated others to follow our example and thus make international activity effective.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence which, among other things, concluded that the Government are


providing no "coherent strategic overview" and that they have made no attempt to provide a military rationale for what, to many of us, seems to be a rather crude Treasury carve-up. but, we should never underestimate the Government's ability to make a crisis out of a windfall. Since Scotland is, as ever, getting the worst deal under those circumstances, I make no apology for concentrating on the impact of Government defence policy in Scotland.
The Rosyth naval base is being savaged. Our high-tech defence industries are being left floundering in impossible circumstances, and now our Territorial Army's parachute regiment is being axed and five first class infantry regiments face amalgamation or suspension.
Later this evening I shall join with other hon. Members from both sides of the House representing Scottish constituencies to present a petition signed by no fewer than 800,000 people in Scotland who oppose the cuts and amalgamations.
May I make a quick plea for the work force at GEC Ferranti Defence Systems Ltd., most of whom are in the Lothian and Edinburgh area. They have an unparalleled record in radar and avionics manufacture and it is not their fault that their management dug itself into a hole which led to the GEC takeover not so long ago. We are now left with a highly specialist division of GEC with very limited scope for diversification away from defence products. Two years ago there were 7,000 jobs; now there are just 4,000, and a further 800 redundancies have just been announced.
That sort of high-tech, precision engineering firm is what Britain requires if we are to have any future in quality manufacturing and the Government should be actively helping diversification projects in that field. I welcome the fact that the Labour Opposition are committed to introducing a defence diversification agency.
We should not be skimping on equipment for our slimmed-down armed forces. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement justified his recent decision not to go ahead with the purchase of Ferranti's FIN 1155 inertial navigation system for the new Challenger tank on the grounds that the system is "too sophisticated" and
could not be justified on cost grounds".
If we ever send British tank crews into action again, we must always ensure that they have the best equipment that we can get for them. Therefore, I urge the Government to reconsider that decision, as well as the case for helping firms such as Ferranti to develop new products, and alternative markets.
I turn to the important but vexed question of the future of the Royal Scots, the Gordons, the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Queen's Own Highlanders. My personal feelings, as the son of a KOSB and as the Member of Parliament for many Royal Scots, are reinforced by my concern as a member of the Defence Select Committee that we must do justice to our armed forces by keeping their strength up to what is required to meet the tasks which we expect them to carry out. The disappearance of the threat of a massive land war in central Europe is a matter for great rejoicing and clearly justifies appropriate adjustment to military forces. However, it should not be taken as an excuse for Ministers to turn the British Army into a sort of military sweatshop which is intolerably overstretched. The Government and the Treasury must not be allowed to cut the strength of the Army beyond the reduction in the Army's allotted task. I can imagine the hue and cry if a Labour Government were to try to pull a fast one like this.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), has undertaken to base decisions on future force sizes on a proper assessment of the tasks of those forces in new world circumstances. But what are the Government doing? They have shed 14 battalion-scale commitments—fair enough—but they are cutting the number of battalions by 17. So the remaining 39 battalions will be left to take on the extra duties as best they can.
For example, troops allocated to specialist roles in the new NATO rapid reaction corps, which will demand a high state of readiness and complicated training, may be required to patrol the streets of Derry and Belfast at the same time. These infantry cuts go too far, and I agree with the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee about that.
How have units been selected for amalgamation or suspension? I do not necessarily suggest that the fact that the Royal Scots is the oldest infantry regiment in the Army —it is the first of the line—should carry too much weight, although it is obviously important. However, it was a bit much to send it into action in very dangerous circumstances in Iraq last year when at the same time Ministry of Defence civil servants were planning to wind up the regiment and to destroy up to 2,000 Army jobs in Scotland. The military issue should be the need to build on the strength of regiments which have a proven record of recruiting and retaining first-class soldiers. What is the sense of retaining regiments, for example, in the Queen's division, which is 18·5 per cent. undermanned because of recruiting and retention problems, while sacrificing the Gordons, the Royal Scots, the KOSBs and the Queen's Own Highlanders, which, to all intents and purposes, are up to strength?
I have been trying hard to understand the motives of the Secretary of State for Defence in taking such irrational decisions. He has said repeatedly that the amalgamations were the decision of the Army Board following consultation with the regiments. We know that colonels of the Scottish division refused to submit to that game of Russian roulette—probably rightly so—which brings us back to the Army Board. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan managed to get that on record from the Secretary of State for Defence, who confirmed that the Army Board consists of all the Tory Ministers in the Ministry of Defence plus a senior civil servant and four generals. The generals are comprehen-sively outgunned by the politicians by five to four and it is contemptible humbug for the Secretary of State to suggest otherwise and to say that it was a purely military decision. It was not. It was a political decision and one that the Government will have to live with.
The decisions relating to the Scottish division are irrational. They can be explained only as malice on the part of the Government towards Scotland. Shortly they will receive a petition signed by 800,000 people in Scotland who oppose the amalgamations and they ought to be aware of the strength of feeling throughout Scotland, even among what is left of the Tory party there. They have made a political decision, and if they stick to it they should not complain too much if they receive a political backlash as a consequence.

Mr. William Cash: I speak on behalf of my constituents in Stafford, where there is grave disquiet about the proposals for the amalgamation between the Staffordshire and Cheshire Regiments. The Director of Infantry laid down clear criteria that regiments would have to meet to avoid the possibility of amalgamation. They included such considerations as whether regiments would be compatible on a like-for-like basis, manpower sustainability and recruitment. On all the essential criteria, the Staffordshire Regiment should be retained in its integrity and should not be amalgamated.
During the Gulf war who was in the front line? The Staffords. Everyone with any experience of that war knows how brilliantly they performed. There is absolutely no justification for the regiment to be amalgamated in this round.
The Director of Infantry's guidelines clearly state that no regiment that has already been amalgamated—as the Staffordshire Regiment was in 1959—should be re-amalgamated while there are regiments that have remained unamalgamated since 1945. Several regiments fall into that category and are not being amalgamated. I do not want to impute bad faith, but people can draw their own conclusions from what I have to say. There are those who were, and are, in a position to make these decisions whose connections with their own regiments have enabled those regiments to remain unamalgamated. It is proposed, however, that the Staffords be amalgamated with the Cheshires, when neither regiment wants that to happen.
It is vital for a proper system of kinship to be retained within the regimental system. Regiments that are expected, as the Staffords were, to go into the front line in the Gulf war and to engage in hand-to-hand fighting need to know that their members are part of a community, and are responding together. It is simply not on to imagine that there is a degree of compatibility between people who, generally speaking, come from the Merseyside area, and those who come from Staffordshire, the black country and the like. There is not sufficient compatibility to enable them to perform effectively in future. When the crunch comes, the Staffords will be needed in the infantry front line. In my view, a serious mistake has been made in the proposals.
On 4 January, the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with, among others, the French Defence Minister, Mr. Chevenement, who said that, if there was majority voting on a common defence policy, there would be no Gulf war. The plain fact was that the French were not prepared—they had not the political will—to go to war in the Gulf. We know that the Germans declined to take part, for entirely spurious reasons; we know that the Belgians were not prepared to supply us with ammunition.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Constitutionally, that was not possible.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that, for constitutional reasons, the Germans could not take part in the Gulf war. I have never heard such tosh in all my life. As has been admitted by the constitutional commission set up in Germany to look into the matter, there is no reason why the Germans should not engage in out-of-area activities in future; and, indeed, there is no reason why they should not have engaged in such activities under articles 24 and 25 of

their constitution. My hon. Friend should look up the details before making such remarks from a sedentary position.
The fact remains that we in Britain were there, in the Gulf. What worries me about the proposals is that, under "Options for Change", it may be impossible for us to come up with the same degree of effective action if we are called upon, in unexpected circumstances, to perform the role that we had to perform then. At the heart of that role is the infantry. It is essential not only to maintain the effectiveness of the infantry regiments as a whole—and we have heard much, and will hear more, about whether there are enough battalions of infantry regiments—but the effectiveness of the Deserts Rats, who are, in their turn, at the heart of those regiments. The Staffords have performed brilliantly in the past, and they should be allowed to continue as a regiment on their own terms in the future.
According to The Sunday Telegraph of 6 October, the Ministry of Defence, when asked about the Anglo-Italian proposals, said:
Britain's smaller, more flexible forces emerging from the Options for Change defence review ideally fitted the plan.
For me, that raises serious questions. We have seen the Dutch proposals that came before the intergovernmental conferences recently. Those proposals would have moved us further and further towards a common defence policy; but do not let us imagine that the same provisions are not also included in the Luxembourg proposals. The fact remains that what has been done constitutes a rationalisation of our own Army plans to fit in with a future common defence policy in Europe, which will not work.
The Anglo-Italian declaration clearly states that the European reaction force would be autonomous, separate from the NATO structure, and would have its own
peacetime planning cell to develop contingency plans and organise exercises".
The fact remains that at the heart of "Options for Change" is a gearing towards a common defence policy in Europe, which will not work.
It is fundamental to the future security and defence of this country that we retain not only our own effective infantry regiments but, within those regiments, the Staffords, with their separate identity. Furthermore, it is essential that we make certain—in terms of this country's future military commitment—that we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into a European defence policy that will not work. It did not work in the Gulf; it will not work if there is any overspill from Yugoslavia. Our entire future military and defence policy must not be subordinated and hijacked by people like Mr. Delors, who are quoted as saying that they hope for
a full-blooded European defence identity, with Washington excluded".
We must retain our NATO connection. We must make sure that the European alliance is combined with an Atlantic alliance, and we must make sure that the best regiments are retained in their integrity. That includes the Staffords.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been here long enough not always to subscribe to the theory of deliberate conspiracy in political decisions. I believe that, occasionally, the present Government have a tremendous ability simply to get into a chaotic situation —not necessarily because of any evil intent, but because


they just happen to be magnificently incompetent. I think that we should give the Government sufficient credit for their incompetence; I am convinced that the decisions that have been made about the regiments owe themselves to exactly that.
There is an historical reason why the British Army operates so well: the traditional involvement of fighting units with their own backgrounds. Although I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it is true that there are ethnic differences between Cheshire and Staffordshire. Those differences are very clear.
Following the tremendous roar of anguish that issued from the people of Cheshire at the suggestion that, somehow or other, they should lose their traditional. Army identity, it has become clear that what concerns them is this. In times of war and stress, it is always much safer to operate within, and surrounded by, a body of people who understand one's problems and with whom one identifies closely. The Cheshires have a long and honourable tradition, and have been able to recruit members because of that—because they were viewed as a group of men and women with a specific character, arising from the area in which they were born, an area that I have the honour to represent.
My real fear, however, is that, as our forces become more and more technically adept—as more and more is spent on high-tech weapons—the confidence that they need to feel will not be there. The people who operate such weapons must have two basic kinds of confidence: confidence in those who command them, the way in which the weapons are being used and the reason for which they are being used, and confidence in the personalities of those who make decisions at Ministry of Defence level.
I am ashamed to say that the lack of such confidence is now very clear. People do not believe that the decision to amalgamate the regiments has been made on the basis of need; they do not believe that it is connected with a lack of expertise, or with putting extra money into high-tech equipment. They believe that a political decision was made at the top, which then had to be matched up with Britain's commitments across the world. That is the wrong way for management decisions to be taken. No organisation can operate successfully if the people within it have no faith in those who take the decisions, or if our commitments, as a democratic society, do not match the needs and the use of Army units. That is what happened on this occasion.
I have had time throughout my life to learn the lesson that unfortunately we need a professional and highly trained and committed Army. No man or woman will give of their best if they are eternally worried about the way in which Governments, and above all Parliaments, treat them and their families. We have seen in our surgeries what happens to those who are forced out of the forces without any clear commitment having been given to them regarding housing or employment. This amalgamation alone would result in 500 redundancies within the Cheshires. Those people know that no one will rehouse them, or find them alternative jobs, or give them the emotional claptrap support that they have been given in the past: "We need you when there is a war; we need you when there is a situation like the Gulf." Just try to get the support of the same authorities when, for any reason, people are forced out of the professional Army.
It is hypocrisy of the deepest hue to pretend that, somehow or other, one can ask people to make what

ultimately may be the final sacrifice—I saw at close quarters what happened to many young people who went to the Gulf and found it difficult to deal with their return to civilian life—if they feel that to the Ministry of Defence they are no more than pawns on a board, to be swept aside when occasion demands—not even pawns in a very intelligent game of chess.
It must be a long time since the Secretary of State for Defence has had to face not just the anger but the contempt of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I hope that he will rapidly reconsider the decision that he has taken. Above all, I hope that he will have enough confidence to change his mind. Only then shall we believe that he is fit to hold his present office.

Sir Peter Blaker: I wish to make three points, the first of which concerns many constituencies in the north-west of England. The future of the military aircraft division of British Aerospace is a matter of very great concern to all my Conservative colleagues in the area, among whom I include my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) who are unable to take part in the debate because they are junior Ministers. However, they have been extremely active, as have the rest of us, in pursuing the interests of British Aerospace. In the next few days, we are to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the future of the company. We have been in touch with the management and the trade union leaders. We shall persist in our efforts to support the company. I wish that I could say that there was more evidence of a similar commitment to British Aerospace from Labour Members of Parliament in the area.
Not long ago British Aerospace announced 3,000 job losses as a result of the closure of the Strand road plant in Preston. My colleagues and I believe that it is important that everything should be done to keep in Lancashire the skilled men and women who will lose their jobs. We do not want them to leave Lancashire for other parts of the country. We are glad that British Aerospace has commissioned an independent company to concern itself with the retraining, resettlement and training for self-employment of those who are going to lose their jobs.
We are interested, of course, not only in those who will lose their jobs but in the 11,000 who will continue to be employed by British Aerospace's military aircraft division in Lancashire. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about its future. In particular, I hope that he will be able to say something about the prospect of future orders for Tornado aircraft and about future orders for the Hawk aircraft, for which there has recently been a welcome new order. It is a very successful aircraft in overseas markets. I hope that he will also say something about the prospects for a mid-life update of the Tornado and in particular about our continued commitment to the European fighter aircraft. As a former Army Minister and as a former Minister for the Armed Forces, the Army amalgamations and reductions are a matter of deep interest to me. Nobody would say that I have been soft on defence. I am a former infantryman—what is more, in a Scottish regiment. Indeed, it was a Canadian Scottish regiment. Anybody who knows Canada knows that a Canadian Scottish regiment is equally as Scottish as a Scottish-Scottish regiment. Therefore, I understand


particularly closely the concern and dismay of members of regiments that are to be amalgamated, particularly the members of Scottish regiments. If there is to be a rethink about the number of regiments that are to be maintained, I hope that the Government will bear the Scottish regiments particularly in mind.
I do not want to enter the debate about the exact number of battalions that should be retained. I thought that the Secretary of State made some powerful arguments in favour of the number that he has chosen. However, I want to try to put the question into perspective. I believe that we are at a major turning point in history. I do not mean simply the history of the second part of the 20th century; I mean the history of the last 200 years. I am not sure that everyone who has spoken in the debate has fully perceived the magnitude of the international changes that we are seeing, with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of eastern Europe.
These changes are at least as great as those that occurred at the end of the first world war and the second world war when there had to be a massive reconstruction of the armed forces. Every regiment in the British Army —certainly the infantry regiments —is the product of one or more amalgamations. Yet morale is high. I believe that it has never been higher.
Now we face the end of another war, the cold war, in which we have been successful. The consequence of that will certainly be turbulence in Europe, but hostility will not be directed particularly at the west. There will be turbulence inside what was the Soviet Union and perhaps inside the countries of eastern Europe, but the threat to the west from the east has been massively reduced. Therefore, it would be indefensible not to make substantial reductions in defence, in financial terms. It would also be indefensible if we adopted the alternative course, which has been suggested, of keeping the same number of regiments and reducing the numbers in each. Such an alternative, if adopted, would be indefensible militarily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—who, sadly, has left the Chamber—made the point that it is essential that people who fight in the same infantry regiment should come from the same part of the world. My experience does not demonstrate that. I had the experience in the Canadian army of being in a regiment that was disbanded. We were fully up to strength. We had trained together for 15 months. We expected to go to France together. Suddenly we were disbanded. We were sent as individuals to different units of the Canadian army. What is interesting is that I do not think that anyone suggested that those who went to join other regiments fought any less well than those who had been members of those regiments for a very long time. We absorbed the traditions of the regiments that we joined, just like those who had been members of those regiments for several years. While we regret the need for these amalgamations, we should be wrong to imagine that they are going to affect the fighting quality of our infantry regiments.
My third point relates to Trident. I wholeheartedly support the emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State puts on the retention of Trident and on retaining four boats. I believe that we need to have other

sub-strategic nuclear weapons, too. There will be other nuclear threats from around the world for which those weapons would be more appropriate than Trident.
Conservative policy on nuclear weapons is clear. Despite all the tergiversations of the Labour party, its policy is still unclear. Its mental and verbal gymnastics in the past year have been such that its intention to retain nuclear weapons cannot be trusted. It is not enough simply to have nuclear weapons—one must be seen to have the will to use them if necessary. I cannot believe that, with all the amazing changes in Labour policy and the different votes at the Labour party's conferences, a Labour Government's willingness to use nuclear weapons if necessary would carry credibility with a potential opponent.
We must have four Trident boats and a sub-strategic nuclear capability.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested to hear the experience of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) with the Canadian Scottish regiments.
The point that many Scottish Members want to make is that for hundreds of years Governments have encouraged family and city ties with regiments. Three of the sons of my constituent, Mrs. Jean Macey, who is a delegate to the local constituency Labour party, are members of the Gordon Highlanders and served in the Gulf. It was not easy for me to tell her of the House's decision to send that regiment and many others to the Gulf. It is not easy to listen to a Minister telling us that everything is fine because we are living at peace with the Russians when he knows full well that the Gulf and the Falklands were unexpected. Who knows what is around the corner?
It is right and fitting for Scottish Members to say that Scotland has not done well from these amalgamations. The Minister knows that the Queen's Own Highlanders is an amalgamation of the Seaforth Highlanders and the Cameron Highlanders and that the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots and the Gordon Highlanders have a fine tradition.
Scotland is losing not only regiments but a battalion of the Scots Guards. It is all very well to speak of suspended animation, but what does that mean? It means that the battalion will disappear. Pals of mine who were in the cadets and TA with me joined the 4th Royal Tank Regiment because its recruiting slogan was, "Join the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, it is Scotland's Tank Regiment." On 23 July, the Minister announced that the tank regiments must amalgamate. Scotland's tank regiment will disappear.
We were glad that the medical young men and women of the Territorial Army were prepared to leave their civilian jobs and go to the Gulf to tend to the sick and wounded. Some of them faced difficulties. One of my constituents received letters from the electricity board threatening to cut off her electricity while she was serving this country in the Gulf. Have we forgotten what the TA was prepared to do?
We had voluntary regiments long before we had professional regiments. The Minister knows full well that he does not have to provide housing for their members. He has to pay them only when they turn up at the weekends


and for drills. He knows that they are heavily committed and that in many inner-city areas TA regiments give up much time to train cadets and to get youngsters out at the weekends to give them some pride in themselves and to teach them some discipline. It is a source of comfort to parents that they are prepared to do that.
I say to those who do not believe in the armed services that we get a dividend from the training that we give our soldiers, because when many of them leave the forces they join the police and security firms and protect our property. The training that is given to bandsmen is such that many of our young service men have become accomplished musicians in civvy street.
The Minister should think again. It is all very well for him to say that he has made no decision about the Territorial Army, but Scottish Members have received letters from serving members of the 15th Parachute Regiment. We have high regard for the Territorial Army and for the Parachute Regiment. The Minister knows that its selection process is such that one has to be fitter than the average person to be selected for it. It is a pity that, if the Minister gets his way, people from north of Liverpool will not have an opportunity to join that regiment.
Many young men, and now women because of the laws on discrimination, join the Territorial Army because they do not want to take the jump into the Regulars but want to find out what the Army is like. Often the TA is used as a recruiting force for the Regular Army. We shall lose that if the Minister has his way. The Scottish regiments have been hit badly, and I plead with the Government to think again.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke much good sense and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister listened to him.
I have been as strong a supporter as anyone of Conservative defence policy in the past 27 years and have warmly paid tribute to the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and Army for their outstanding work in the Gulf, the Falklands and all over the world. I want to pay a further personal tribute to my old close friend and everybody's colleague, Alick Buchanan-Smith. He was a wonderful constituency Member, whether the issue was farming, fishing, education or health. His last campaign was to save the Gordon Highlanders. To the last day of his life, he was asking how the campaign was going. Were he alive, he would be with us this evening.
Fifteen months ago, I begged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to move slowly until the world settled down from turmoil and before he reached final conclusions on "Options for Change". Since then, we have had the Gulf war and upheaval in Russia and eastern Europe. If ever there were a time for caution and to think again, this is it.
We all want the peace dividend, and I made it clear that I accept that the planned reduction in defence expenditure is essential, but the question is how is that to be achieved? I accept that the main threat has diminished, but it has not disappeared altogether. It is an interesting statistic that since 1945 there have been 37 clasps to the general service medal that so many of our service people wear proudly. None of those bars was awarded for action involving

Russia or eastern bloc countries. That shows how frequently our service men have been deployed around the world in war-time conditions.
I hope that the savings that we have made over the past month or two on tactical nuclear weapons will provide the additional resources that we require for the infantry. The cut in the number of battalions from 55 to 38 is far too great because our commitment has remained much the same. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was over-optimistic in his view of foreign affairs and in thinking that we could make a substantial reduction in our commitment. The consensus of the staff college, the national defence college and many defence experts is that a force of 116,000 is too small. We should aim for perhaps 120,000, to ease the effect in the coming months of controversial regimental amalgamations.
I welcome the concept of a rapid reaction corps in NATO. Will the battalions that are tied into the RRC be available for service in Northern Ireland? That is a crucial part of the equation. In effect, it takes a battalion one year to train, to serve in Northern Ireland and to retrain to fulfil its original role.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in the presentation of a petition with 800,000 signatures showing how strongly the Scottish people feel about retaining the four Scottish regiments that have been told to amalgamate. Those signatories are a large proportion of the adult population of Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind that, if democracy means anything, he must listen carefully to the clear views of such an enormous number of people. Many people would congratulate Lieutenant-General Sir John MacMillan and his colleagues on their wonderful campaign to collect so many signatures in such a short time.
The Army Board has made the decision; Ministers must take the responsibility. The decision has been taken without the agreement of the colonels or colonels-in-chief of the regiments. It is wrong for the Ministry of Defence to imply in the letters that it has been sending to my constituents, and no doubt to others, that the colonels were consulted and agreed with the decision. My right hon. and hon. Friends have not taken account of the repercussions of their decisions on Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that the Army wants a quick decision, but I believe that it really wants us to have a Conservative Government after the general election, or it will face much more massive cuts under Labour.
Why is Scotland in uproar? There are 800,000 signatures on the petition. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appreciate that that means that five of the eight infantry regiments recruiting in Scotland are affected, including—as the hon. Member for Springburn said—the Scots Guards. That means four of the seven Scottish Division infantry battalions, yet the guidelines laid down by the Director of Infantry and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House showed that the three criteria would be recruitment, retention—including training—and the fact that, if a regiment had been amalgamated previously, it would not be amalgamated again. All three guidelines seem to have been breached in the dealings with the Scottish Division. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


appreciate that 35 Army battalions are under-establishment by 70 or more men, yet none of those battalions is in the Scottish Division? That shows the strength of recruiting and retention in Scotland.
I have the highest regard for the King's Division, our immediate neighbours across the border. Its members are as well-recruited and retained as members of the Scottish Division, yet none of the English infantry battalions has been affected by amalgamation or "Options for Change". It is therefore reasonable for Scotland to say, "Is this fair to us?" We deserve an answer.
I hope that I will not be too unpopular if I mention the Gurkhas. They are great fighting soldiers and have a wonderful tradition. During the first world war, my father was seriously wounded while he was with the Gurkhas. How can Gurkha battalions be retained while British battalions are disbanded or amalgamated? That is a difficult equation for any hon. Member to accept.
The decision will have economic repercussions in Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind the effect on housing of so many soldiers leaving the Army. Local authority housing in Scotland is hard to come by and some local authorities show little sympathy for soldiers leaving the Army.
We must have from Ministers an explanation of the reason for the Army Board's decisions. The oldest regiment in the Army, the Royal Scots—the First Foot —has not been told why it was chosen. The King's Own Scottish Borderers, which is more than 300 years old, has not heard a word about why it has been affected. The Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders, which are more than 200 years old, have not been told why. The officers and men of those battalions need to know why they have been singled out for amalgamation.
I have kept clear of emotion and arguments about tradition and excellence because I believe that the regiments have a good case on military grounds alone. The Army Board must explain the position. I do not see this as a security or secrecy issue or as one that should be kept from the regiments. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to rethink and to find a positive way forward. In that way, we shall reach a reasonable solution. I ask him to bear in mind the last line of a successful song at Murrayfield and "Tae think again".

Mr. Frank Cook: It is particularly galling to have to confine one's remarks to 10 minutes when the range of perspectives is so numerous. I have taken part in many defence debates and been disappointed at the knee-jerk and disjointed nature of such exchanges and at the relentlessly partisan arguments issuing from the Mexican stand-off character of the cold war concept of mutually assured destruction and flexible response.
Hope for an improvement in the exchanges sprang from the thaw in east-west relations. Sadly, it seems that only the Opposition parties are prepared to reach out realistically for a constructive response to the changing scenario resulting from the Gorbachev-Reagan and Gorbachev-Bush initiatives. That is not only sad but dangerous.
"Options for Change" was placed on the table without any clear declaration of our defence requirements in the

light of existing and future foreign relations and responsibilities. The 38 infantry battalions which the Secretary of State seems to feel are adequate are unjustifiable if we take into account our total commitments in Northern Ireland and central Europe and our existing outposts in Belize, Brunei, Hong Kong, Korea and the like. It is a figure plucked from the air—I suspect in some Treasury inner sanctum. The size of the manpower requirement retained should surely be based on the levels of operational need to meet the demands placed on our forces by our declared foreign policy and perhaps, in some cases, undeclared needs.
Independent and informed opinion on the adequacy of the Government's proposals seems unanimous in the view that they just will not do. Following the attempted coup in the Soviet Union and in the light of the potential bushfire in Yugoslavia and the ever-present threat of international terrorism, such comments cannot go unheeded. The only sensible action is to review the Government's decision, which is clearly wrong.
It does not make sense to argue that the defence budget should be reduced to the average budget of our European allies. How does it make sense to equate our levels of defence spending with those of countries such as Norway or Denmark? We ask our forces to bear a different burden of responsibility and a wider range of tasks in a broader spectrum of an operational theatre. The level of our commitment at home and abroad forbids the application of such easy arithmetical solutions. Our newly accepted role as lead nation in the recently conceived rapid deployment force adds emphasis to the invalidity of such a simplistic argument.
If the Government are determined to show proof positive of the peace dividend to improve the Conservative party's polling position, as a unilateral nuclear disarmer I suggest that they apply their axe to a resource that is clearly not justifiable, and that is our so-called independent nuclear deterrent. The only useful reason for having the deterrent, as Nye Bevan implied, is to provide us with a place at the disarmament conference table.
The Soviet arms reduction team would gladly put our weapons reduction to use in justifying to its own military further disarmament on its part. Instead of approaching reduction and assessment in such a clinical fashion, we have hysterical exchanges on the frantic and frankly trivial arguments over regimental identity and cap badging. Many of these arguments are frankly claptrap.
Units of the Navy and Air Force manage to operate most effectively without regional identity, as do the various corps of the Army, including the medical, engineers and transport corps. Within the Royal Marines' three brigades there are three commando forces, which are designated 40, 42 and 45. Their personnel are triple drafted according to unit requirements, so nourishing individual training and the need for promotion potential. Thereby the career cul-de-sac is avoided and the operational effectiveness of the units as active forces is consequently enhanced by the flexibility that ensues. Who will try to convince me that the Royal Marines is a force that does not function effectively, despite the sniggering on the Government Front Bench?
The same is true of our airborne forces. If we consider that regional or regimental identities are worth preserving —in historical, sentimental or emotional terms that may be so, and clearly the petition that has been presented suggests that that is so—that argument would be more


properly applied to the units that we hold in reserve, the Territorial Army. I enter a plea that we preserve the identity of the Durham Light Infantry within the territorial units in the north-east. It is— [Interruption.] I am talking about our reserve units. It is sad that some Conservative Members seem to be unaware of the nature of the units to which I am referring. The retention of such identity for a reserve unit within a geographical region could be justified. That is what is commonly called the qualification.
It is ironic that such a case is easy to make when we consider the questionable decision to cut both companies of the Parachute Regiment in the north-east, thereby leaving that part of the country and Scotland without provision for airborne training. Many young men—many of them presently unemployed—on Teesside at Norton and on Tyneside and at Gateshead will be bitterly disappointed and not a little disillusioned by such a cynical measure.
I urge the Secretary of State to think again, and I hope that on this occasion he will respond to my argument I ask for a specific response. During the most recent Army debate I posed a question and the Secretary of State promised to consider my remarks. I still await his reaction. My question concerned the staff at the military corrective training centre at Colchester, who will find themselves soaked up into the Adjutant-General corps, together with the Royal Military Police. I am sure that the House will recognise that that would be an unfortunate juxtaposition. Surely the respective staffs should be kept apart, or are we next to consider joining the police and the prison service? That would be just as lunatic a proposal. Such a proposal would be considered mad in civilian life, so why should it be good sense in a military context?
The Government's proposals have been hastily cobbled. They are ill-conceived, badly developed and poorly presented. If the House shows sense when the Division takes place tomorrow evening, the Secretary of State will be sentenced to be confined to barracks and will be kept on report until he comes up with more sensible proposals that are in line with our total requirements, which are based on defence and foreign policy demands. In other words, if there are options for change, for pity's sake let us know what they are, let us consider them and let us debate them rationally.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I fully appreciate Ministers' difficulties in implementing the machinery of government. I must start, however, by expressing my strong concern about the way in which the Government are proceeding with material changes in the size, shape and structure of our armed forces without first seeking the approval of the House.
The size of the Royal Navy was determined and announced in July. The size of the Army and the changes that will take place within it were published shortly afterwards. The fate of the Royal Air Force was resolved at the beginning of July. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House, at least three squadrons have already been disbanded. Redundancy terms were announced in August. There can be no doubt that the Gulf war held up announcements for the period of the conflict, but as soon as that inconvenience was over the

programme returned to top gear. It is not unprecedented to ignore this place, but to do so blatantly on such important matters is to be strongly regretted.
Had anyone suggested 15 months ago that the British armed forces were about to embark on the largest expeditionary force since the second world war, I have no doubt that his sanity would have been questioned. But was the fall of communism, along with the August coup and civil war in Yugoslavia, predicted by our military planners? It is the unexpected for which we have to be ready. The only good thing that can be said about Saddam Hussein is that he reminded us of that fact. Why do we never learn?
Despite all the events that have taken place and the current instability in large parts of Europe, the Ministry of Defence has not even paused in considering "Options for Change". Driven along by the Treasury—I find it ludicrous to expect anyone to believe that the Treasury is not the driving force behind the proposed changes—the Ministry has served up the options in dribs and drabs in the hope that no one will notice the global effect on our defence capabilities.
When the Russian coup took place, many of my constituents telephoned me immediately and asked, "Can we hold the cuts in defence? Why are our memories so short? Why are our Ministers so confident that they can guarantee no unforeseen emergency? How can they conduct this exercise and at the same time promise that our defences are adequate? They cannot do so and they should not be doing so."
I have, of course, heard the Government's song. It is said that, because of the changes in Europe, the threat to our safety has been much reduced and that there has, therefore, to be a peace dividend. The serious flaw in the argument is the basic assumption that we ever had sufficient forces to counter the then threat. I believe that the current level of expenditure is close to the bare minimum to deal with whatever unknown crisis may arise. I accept, however, that that will mean some reduction in size and a change in shape.
The Gulf enterprise was a massive success and all involved deserve the warmest gratitude and congratulation from the nation. By world war standards, the force size would have been measured at one division. I recognise that such a comparison shows clearly the amazing multiplier of modern technology, but in the same breath I have to observe that all three services were stretched to the limit in providing even that size of force so far from home.
I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that one of the lessons from the Gulf was the importance of logistics. I thought that every historian knew that that had been the case since Caesar wrote the history of the Gallic wars. The fact remains that logistics are crucial. Our forces must have a substantial enhancement in their helicopter capacity as a matter of priority. There was a great shortage of helicopters in the Gulf. Although only approximately one fifth of the British Army was deployed, half of all the RAF support helicopters were in use and they were not adequate and had to be supplemented by 18 Sea Kings, normally in use by the Royal Marines. We were short of helicopters in the Falklands and, 10 years later, nothing material has been done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), when Secretary of State, announced that he would buy 25 utility EH101s for the RAF to support the


Army. Where are those helicopters, and why were they never ordered? They would have been worth their weight in gold in the Gulf, and I am very distressed to see today, in the Government's reply to the Select Committee's seventh report—at paragraph 18—that they are still prevaricating, still studying and still indecisive on this vital matter.
There were few, if any, operational helicopters left in Germany while the Gulf conflict was on. It is well known that the air mobile brigade has no air mobility, and the continuing error in spending more and more money on armoured vehicles is reminiscent of the reluctance of the cavalry to give up its horses at the end of the first world war.
After 10 years or more of making such pleas, I despair of the way in which Ministers are overridden by the military. As to attack helicopters, one has only to point to the Americans to recognise that their appreciation of the modern battlefield has been infinitely superior to our own, and I am told that the flexibility, speed and power of the Apaches in action was awesome.
The Army still seems quite unable to decide its philosophy for mobility in the battlefield in the 1990s and, by default, we are still left with an organisation that owes more to second world war thinking than to a proper appreciation of the new factors that make the battlefield a very different place nearly 50 years later.
The announcement of a cut of nearly one quarter in the strength of the British Army by way of answer to an oral question was in itself a revelation of the Government's attitude to these matters, but on that occasion I was grateful for the opportunity to ask a supplementary question on the future of the Territorial Army and I have to say that I received a friendly answer. I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I have been attending debates such as this for many years and I do not remember a speech from a retired territorial on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman had many sensible things to say.
At this time, there seems an overwhelming argument —not addressed this afternoon—for enhancing the Territorial Army and, indeed, all the reserves, and, whatever numbers may be proposed, for ensuring that it receives at least the same, if not more, in real terms as it receives at present. It was my privilege when at the Ministry of Defence to produce a programme for the expansion of the TA, although I readily acknowledge that at no time has the TA achieved the numbers that we then proposed, largely because of very high wastage. I therefore have some sympathy for the decision to set the numbers at a realistic figure, but I am far from convinced that everything possible has been done to recruit more fully and increase retention. I am in no doubt that, if the Regular Army were responsible for TA recruiting—by "respon-sible", I mean both physically and financially—some substantial measures would be taken to improve retention and make the training more attractive. I was suspicious of the figure produced earlier this afternoon—60,000 or thereabouts—remembering that, when I first joined the TA, it was over 130,000 strong.
I particularly hope that there will be a firm commitment to all our reserve forces, and I find it appalling to learn that

training restrictions and other economies are yet again being imposed on these unfortunate volunteers at a time when it is so vital to improve morale and encourage recruiting for the future. I expect and hope for an early announcement on the future shape of the reserve, and I find it wrong that, despite all the talk about a single Army and the one-Army concept, it is months after the Army's future has been debated and announced before the Government have even given proper and full thought to the future of the Territorial Army.
It comes as no great pleasure to me to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, after loyally supporting the Conservative party's defence policies in the House for 22 years, I shall find myself unable to do so tomorrow night.

Mr. Bruce George: The remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), a former junior defence Minister, need to be taken very seriously.
I find myself in the somewhat embarrassing position of being wholeheartedly in favour of the defence policies that have been emerging from the Opposition Benches over the past few months. Many people have delivered lectures to us over the years—in some cases, deservedly—but, in general, it must be accepted that the Labour party has now returned to the principles that it has espoused for most of its history. To argue that the Labour party must be judged simply on the basis of the 1980s is to do less than justice to people such as Ernie Bevin and Clem Attlee and to many people in the Labour movement who have alway regarded defence as the essential component of any country's, and any political party's, policies. I hope that we shall be judged on the basis of our party's contribution from the second world war to the present and not simply during a period that I would regard as something of an aberration.
There is now much more agreement on security issues, and that is warmly welcomed. However, as the Select Committee on Defence pointed out, the defence White Paper is seriously deficient. It has not provided a strategic rationale for the decisions that are being made, and I am afraid that the Secretary of State's addendum to the security rationale was rather unsatisfactory. The Defence Committee pointed to another deficiency of the White Paper: it does not give a proper financial rationale for what is proposed. The view of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, a former Defence Minister, that perhaps public procurement has not been adequate is not surprising because the Government were spending the peace dividend before it was available to be spent. Given declining defence expenditure since 1985, it is not difficult to understand why the Government have been totally unable to match commitments and resources. And with defence expenditure falling to the estimated 1993–94 level of 3·4 per cent., supporters of CND will be placed in something of a dilemma as to which party to support in the months that lie ahead.
The strategic rationale for the Government's policy is inadequate. The first part of the Secretary of State's speech appeared to suggest that there was no threat at all. Whoever wrote the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, however, saw that there was a threat. Although I am delighted that communism has been


expunged from eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and that the Soviet military has been pushed further back, giving us more and more warning time, I ask hon. Members to consider the debit side of the argument: the Soviet—or Russian—military will still be that of a super-power. I spoke at a conference last week in Washington and was preceded by Colin Powell, who said that Russia still has the capability of destroying the western world in 30 minutes. What happens if that country, which looks increasingly like the Weimar republic, collapses in failure? Will some house painter in Russia regard himself as the man on horseback? That is eminently possible.
There are now four or five nuclear powers deriving from what was the Soviet Union. We have not even begun to consider the implications of the story that appeared in the press a couple of days ago to the effect that dictatorships in the middle and far east may be scouring the Soviet Union for unemployed or disenchanted nuclear scientists and offering them big bucks to go to their countries.
By the turn of the century, we could have 20 nuclear powers in the world. The possible disintegration or the Soviet Union, the existence of all those nuclear powers and the possible—although, it is to be hoped, unlikely— resurgence of militarism should surely give the Government grounds for being rather more prudent than they are being at present. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) treated us to a little lecture on history, and talked about a sea change. We have heard such talk before. Take the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and, before that, the treaty of Westphalia. We had the treaties of Vienna and Versailles. We had Yalta and, a year ago, the treaty of Paris. All of them supposedly ushered in new eras. All those treaty-makers said that the world had changed. They said that we were moving to a new world and that a new order had been created. We should consider the statistics about wars that occurred after those epoch-making treaties. The world was damned by conflict after those treaties.
Are we absolutely certain that this new order will be peaceful? It is said that there are 30 wars around the world today. The absence of super-power conflict will accelerate regional conflict, not diminish it. I hope that we are moving to an era about which the Government's perception is correct. However, I am not certain that we have moved into that period yet.
The Soviet Union is still building 10 submarines a year. In two years of continuous production, it will produce more than the Royal Navy will possess. The Royal Navy's capability will be reduced from 28 to 16.
Why are we reducing our Army to 116,000, a point at which it will be unable to meet its domestic commitments? The soldiers in the rapid reaction force are supposed to be trained to a high degree of professionalism, but they will be spending much of their time in Northern Ireland. In order to eke out our infantry battalions, soldiers will be sent to Northern Ireland who are not trained to a level commensurate with fighting a skilled force such as the IRA.
What will the Minister or a commanding officer write to the parents of a soldier in a tank regiment who has been given a little extra training and then sent off to bandit country? Is he to write, "I'm sorry your son died. He wasn't quite up to the task"? I very much fear that that might happen.
I have a parochial point to make. My constituency in the west midlands is no longer in Staffordshire. However, the Staffordshire regiment recruits heavily from my area. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook): there is an enormous sense of pride in a local regiment and a greater efficiency can accrue from one. I am aware of the campaigns that have been mounted about the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments. As someone pointed out to me today, the liaison between a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Cheshire cat is likely to produce something of an aberration. I hope that the Government will reconsider. I would not defend a Staffordshire regiment simply on the criterion of history. I would defend it and want to see it survive because it is efficient, recruits well and is needed for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps in the next five or 10 years the cuts that the Government have announced will appear to have been inadequate. Perhaps we are moving to a new dawn in history when we will need to "beat swords into plowshares" and Isaiah, who did not know much about the concept of defence conversion, may be proved to be right. However, until the situation is clearer, we should cut, but do it prudently. I urgently request the Government to give the matter more consideration than has hitherto been presented to us in the House.
There is a greater defence consensus and I welcome all that is happening in the positive side of international relations. However, history and experience should teach us that sometimes new dawns fail to be achieved. We should be rather more careful than the Government are being with regard to this issue.

Mr. Julian Brazier: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who expressed robust and interesting views. Sadly, his views are not shared by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, and certainly not by the Labour party leader, who is a former member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
We must not forget that we have a double responsibility to preserve the defence of this country. We are the Government of the day and the Conservative party remains the only political party in Britain which is firmly convinced about the importance of defence, both nuclear and conventional.
I want to tackle two themes today, the first of which is the infantry problem. I am sure that we can solve that problem by an attack on the MoD's overheads. The second theme is the need for a more imaginative approach to our reserves.
I am sure that all Conservative Members welcome the MoD's cornering of the rapid reaction corps concept for the British Army. That concept is exciting, but before a concept can become a reality certain preconditions must be met. Friends of mine in the Army have said again and again that it is simply not realistic to believe that we can have a rapid reaction corps if the proportion of the infantry that is away from its duties in that corps, serving in, training for or recovering from Ulster, is even higher than it already is in the British Army of the Rhine.
Of course the problem goes beyond that. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has identified the overstretch on service families. The infantry and to some extent the


seagoing element of the Navy are the two most overstretched portions of our armed forces. We could solve that problem and provide the comparatively small number of extra posts that are needed in the Army to keep those vital three or four extra infantry battalions if we were to attack the overheads in the MoD. Time permits me to give just two examples.
First, it frankly defies belief that, when we are reducing our surface Navy by 20 per cent. and our submarines by 40 per cent., we should choose to keep all four of our overmanned and underworked naval bases in being. I shall not argue which are the best and which are the least good, but the announcement in July of a few cuts across the board in them is not enough. At least one and possibly two of them should go.
A second example is the announcement of a £250 million purchase of integrated computing and office systems equipment supposedly to revitalise our defence procurement system. As a former management consultant, I must tell the House that one does not computerise a system before one has made it work efficiently. One gets it working efficiently first and then one computerises it. Our present defence procurement effort is not in a right state for computerisation. It will get worse rather than better, and it will cost the price of a squadron of Tornados to do it.
We can have an adequate number of infantry battalions if we are willing to grasp the nettle and cut the companies of computer operators, the battalions of bean counters and the divisions of dockyard workers. If we can provide those extra three or four infantry battalions that would reduce the overstretch so much on the infantry, and hence on the Army as a whole, then as the Member of Parliament for Canterbury, the home of the Queen's Regiment, I must say that top of the list for cancellation should be the planned amalgamation between the Queen's and the Hampshires. Our regiment is the only regiment in the British Army which is threatened with both amalgamation and reduction, and that in a regiment that is already formed from amalgamating six famous regiments with the highest number of Victoria Crosses of any regiment in the British Army.
My second theme is the future of the reserve forces. It is the wrong time to be cutting the reserves, but, whatever we do with the reserve forces, there are certain things which plain common sense suggests we should do. I should like to suggest five of them. First, one cannot move a Territorial Army unit; one can only disband it. We should focus our future reserves, if we are to reduce the number, on the best reserve units. I find in horror, looking at the provisional lists, that we are proposing to disband some of the best-recruited and some of the most efficient units in the TA while others are being kept—it is invidious to mention names, but I could mention one or two units that can barely produce a company strength on a weekend. Secondly, we are the only country in the English-speaking world whose director of reserves is not a reservist. That is one reason why some of the proposals for the future of the reserves are not based on a full understanding of the reserves.
My third point is that one of the weaknesses in our reserve forces is that we put much less emphasis on officer training than, for example, the Australians and the

American National Guard, who both have much more cost-effective reserve forces than we have, as evidenced, for example, in their much higher retention rates. I firmly believe that we should extend the Sandhurst course for reservists from two weeks to, say, seven or eight weeks, which is the period for which its equivalent in Australia lasts. Far from putting people off becoming reserve Army officers, we would have a really good product that we could sell to civilian employers as an effective form of management training.
My fourth point on the reserve forces is that we must be quite clear when we look at the future size of the reserves that the pledges that we have had—they were very welcome—to expand the planned strengths from 50,000 to around 65,000 are pledges on strengths and not on establishment. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to put to rest the ugly rumour that is spreading that we are now looking at an establishment of 63,000 and a planned strength for next year of only 55,000.
My fifth point is that if our reserve forces are to feel confident in themselves, and if their morale is to be restored following their disappointments last year when so few of our reserve units were called out and they saw 78,000 American National Guardsmen and other reserve force personnel go to the Gulf, it is essential that we make it clear that in future conflicts our reserve forces will play a much more prominent part. That, above all, would convince the ordinary reservist that he has a real role to play as a part-time soldier. That would be best achieved by giving our reservists something to do in peacetime and by a greater willingness to use them for disaster relief operations, which is something that the Americans tend to do a lot.
I end where I began. The Conservative party is the party which firmly believes in strong defences. At this time of great changes, the Conservative party has a vital duty as the party in government to ensure that we continue to have strong armed forces. The basic concept is there, but a great deal of the detail needs working out. We must get the infantry question right and be much more imaginative in our ideas about our reserve forces.

Mr. George Galloway: The Secretary of State took a long time to shed a lot more heat than light on the thinking behind the decisions that we are debating. If I had the time, I should like to travel down several avenues of strategy, one of which was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) when he asked why, at a time of what is, according to the Secretary of State, a greatly reduced threat, we are going ahead with a massive escalation of our nuclear punching power. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was necessary because we need to penetrate the anti-missile systems of our potential enemies and to ensure that our nuclear deterrent is credible. He was apparently oblivious to the implication of those remarks—that for many years we have spent billions of pounds on nuclear weapons that were incredible and incapable of penetrating our enemies' shield. However, as I have said, time does not allow me to pass down such avenues.
The fog of concern has never cleared from the battlefield of whether the Government's motivation has been the voodoo economics of the Treasury rather than


the military logic of Britain's real defence requirements. I listened in vain for an explanation of why we are currently dismantling our Navy. In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, we have moved from being in favour of a surface fleet of "about 50" to favouring one of "about 30". That makes us the only island nation in history that has progressively dismantled its shipbuilding industry, decimated its Merchant Navy and now, for economic reasons, is about to destroy the capability of its Royal Navy.
As the Minister knows, I have the privilege of representing the flagship enterprise of Yarrow Shipbuilders, which built 10 of the 14 type 22 frigates and won six of the 10 contracts for the type 23s. Almost 10,000 jobs in Strathclyde depend on Yarrow's ability to continue to do the job that it does so well. Tonight or tomorrow I hope to hear assurances from the Minister that the order date for the next batch of type 23s, which has already been delayed for more than one year, will be the spring of next year at the latest. I am looking for assurances tonight or tomorrow that the order will be for the three ships that were orginally mentioned and that they will be issued in a batch. If that order is placed on the basis of the proper competition in which the Government say that they believe, and on the basis of quality, price and reliability, I believe that Yarrow Shipbuilders will win the order.
I also represent the headquarters of 15 Para TA, which is based at Yorkhill in my constituency. Like other hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters from members, supporters and former soldiers of the paratroop TA in my constituency who cannot believe that, in the situation that the Secretary of State outlined—with our country's changed military needs and with the changed perception of the threat facing us, its direction and it character—we are proposing to abolish a unit of the Territorial Army that contains exactly the type of soldier who is most required to meet the new military needs. What could be more flexible? Who is better trained, fitter, leaner and hungrier than the elite parachute forces of a country to meet these new military requirements?
We should contemplate the national dimension. Many speakers have said that if the proposals go through, there will not be a parachute TA north of Liverpool. It is simply monstrous and unacceptable. I hope that, even if nothing else changes the Government's mind, the sheer lunacy of the abolition of 15 Para will be brought home to Ministers. If the period of consultation is genuine, we shall see that decision reversed.
In the last few minutes available to me, I want to touch on the national question, as other speakers on both sides of the House have movingly done. I beg the Government not to underestimate the deep well of bitterness in Scotland at the extent to which we are being given a raw deal in this affair. There is a deep well of bitterness in Scotland, that most martial of all the nations of the United Kingdom. Its soldiers have been on the front line throughout the centuries and across all the continents. They have left their bones in the carnage of British imperial history in country after country and war after war.
That our regiments should be again so cavalierly amalgamated, disbanded and disregarded is a matter of deeply felt national insult. If the Government do not believe me, they should read the runes of the oncoming defeat for the Conservative party in the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside. Many issues will be at play, but

the abolition or amalgamation of the local regiment will be one of the most powerful reasons why the Conservative party will be annihilated.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that deep well of bitterness is felt no more keenly than among the families and individuals of the Scottish regiments who were sent only a few months ago in disproportionate number to the front line of Britain's contribution in the Gulf war. We now know that when those soldiers were fighting, killing and, yes, dying in pursuit of the Government's policy, the fat cats of the Tory Cabinet and the mandarins in Whitehall, whose jobs are by and large safe, were conspiring to consign those very regiments, those very soldiers and their families to the dustbin of history.
I beg the Government to listen to perhaps not the reasons that have been given by hon. Members on this side of the House but the voices of their own people behind them and to think again on "Options for Change".

Sir Alan Glyn: Before the recess, we had the "Options for Change". I consider that there were three grave mistakes in the Secretary of State's speech. First, the cuts were too early and too drastic, even in view of the changes in Europe. It seems that my right hon. Friend was influenced by the ending of the Warsaw pact. But many other considerations come into the decisions. Secondly, the cuts were too drastic and too soon to meet our NATO commitments and our own overseas obligations. In particular, we failed to appreciate the role of the infantry in war.
I shall not go into the merits of the amalgamations because that is for the constituency Members themselves to do. However, the facts are that we have reduced to an untenable level the total number of infantry in our Army. The Secretary of State also referred to the loss of regimental spirit. He did not realise or appreciate the importance that the entire House has been able to identify.
The third point was that the Territorial Army should be reduced. It should not. If the regular Army is being reduced, we need a TA as a second line. We needed that in the last war. How many territorials fell in the last war? They were a second line of defence. Moreover, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the training given to them is invaluable not only to the nation but to themselves. It gives them discipline and allows them good jobs. They are a credit to the country. The TA has a feeling almost of regimental pride. It is a tradition that we should not give up. Indeed, I should like a citizens' army. It would be difficult to organise. I envisage not national service but a far bigger Territorial Army.
The Secretary of State also talked about fire power at El Alamein and I was interested in his comparison, but he did not realise that our enemies had the same fire power as we had. I am talking not of Iraq but of our main enemies.
Everybody says that the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism is marvellous, but if we look closely we see that it strengthens the Russian army. It is not now saddled with a lot of unreliable allies. Poland has gone, and the Balkans. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and all Russia's satellites, except one or two, would have been unreliable in battle. Certainly the Mohammedan people could not have been relied on. The Soviet army is better off without these peoples. Yeltsin's Russia has sufficient soldiers, arms and ammunition to become and remain a


first-class power. Only two or three provinces remain difficult and, of course, we do not know what they will do. There are rapid changes which we cannot ignore and we cannot rely on Gorbachev's promises. In any event, everything could change. If, for example, Yeltsin and Gorbachev went as quickly as they appeared, the position would be wholly different. Our old necessity for a large Army would exist.
We are taking too short a view. Saddam Hussein, China, Israel and India all have atomic weapons, so we must keep Trident which is our only form of nuclear defence. The world is by no means safer. The uninevitable and unknown may easily arise with a Europe which is so disorganised and prone to change.
Finally, I turn to the Household Cavalry. I have served in the armoured regiment and the mounted regiment and I just do not believe that we can possibly run the armoured and mounted regiments without more sabre squadrons or some sort of training squadron from which to draw recruits.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I have sat through all the speeches except a couple, and I apologise to those whose speeches I did not hear. The debate has been a good one, with strong feelings and passion on both sides of the House, particularly from those calling for loyalty to their local regiments. I hope that, when he reads the Official Report, the Secretary of State will take note of the many good points made. I can mention only briefly some of those who spoke because of the short time available to me. They include the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart), the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) declared tonight, with some passion, that he would not vote with the Government on this issue.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Territorial Army. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about tactical air-to-surface missiles, of which we are not in favour. I also agree with him that we should keep the D5 warheads at the same level as our Polaris fleet. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) asked how decisions were made, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will reply directly to him. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was not asking for all cuts to be restored, only whether we had the size right. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) referred to nuclear depth bombs, and asked how we would take out submarines if we did not have such a weapon.
The Opposition agreed that no Front-Bench spokes-man would show favour for one regiment against another. However, I want to raise one minor point about a change of name. During the recess I had a meeting with Lieutenant-Colonel Simon Furness and Major Bowers at the Light Infantry office in Durham. I support their view that there must be a complete Territorial battalion in the old County Durham from the Tyne to the Tees. There is

great support among the military and from many others that the battalion should be renamed the Durham Light Infantry (7LI). I strongly desire that the link with Durham should be maintained, and I hope that soon we can headline the phrase, "The Durhams are back". That would be the cause of great pride among many former soldiers. Lieutenant-Colonel Furness has asked me to remind the Secretary of State that he was a member of the Somerset LI. I think that he expects some favour because of that.
I want to say a few words about the Navy. In the confused background to "Options for Change" it is little wonder that the detailed force structure proposals for the Navy are confusing. Let us first consider submarines. Only five years ago the Navy had a fleet of 15 diesel patrol submarines. Under "Options for Change", there will be only four Upholder class. What commitments are being dropped? Will there be sufficient vessels to meet all the demands of basic training, NATO exercises, operational training and support of special operations, or is it simply a fait accompli caused by the inevitable withdrawal of the aging Oberon and Porpoise boats, and Treasury dislike of the rising costs, delays and technical problems of the Upholder programme?
In the debate on the Navy last June, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that the cancellation of the fifth and subsequent Upholder class boats was decided after careful consideration and that the Government believed that they
had the right balance between the SSKs and SSNs."— [Official Report, 27 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1234.]
I was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now.
The thinking about Britain's contribution to submarine warfare has been dominated for too long by what I call the Rickover factor. As many hon. Members will recall, Admiral Rickover was the architect of the US navy's nuclear submarine programmes in the 1950s and 1960s. His unflinching devotion to nuclear propulsion still dominates US thinking. When the design for the Oberon-Porpoise class SSKs was being drawn up, the automatic assumption was that Britain had to think big, and to try to squeeze into a diesel submarine as many as possible of the deep ocean-going, anti-submarine capabilities of the SSN. As a result, we have ended up with a vessel that is so costly and over-complex that it does not work. We cannot afford it, and it is increasingly ill-suited to our real security needs. The need for the capacity for all-out nuclear and conventional warfare in arctic waters, under the ice and around the Kola peninsula, is receding daily into an historical fairyland, yet "Options for Change" restructuring of the Royal Navy will leave a navy increasingly geared to just such a fantasy. The real needs of shallow-water, anti-submarine warfare—intelligence gathering, coastal protection, and low intensity warfare, for which the SSK is better suited—are being neglected. Instead, we persist with a mini-navy that is expensive to run and irrelevant to most of the conflicts in which we may be involved.
In the surface fleet, there is equal confusion about the basis for the future force structures and levels. The Minister said in last June's Navy debate:
The force levels envisaged in 'Options for Change' were arrived at after careful analysis of the threat that Britain now faces … it has been the threat against us that has shaped our work."—[Official Report, 27 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1176.]

Mr. Franks: What about Trident?

Mr. Boyes: I will mention Trident in due course.
However, there has been no clearly stated rationale for the planned reductions to "about 40" destroyers and frigates. Which tasks are to be dropped or altered? Will exercise participation be reduced? Is there a discussion in NATO about changing escort requirements and levels of declaration to NATO?
The Government should not be afraid to open a debate on the military rationale for cuts. Although we recognise the importance of retaining strategically vital industries and of limiting increases in unemployment, no one seriously believes that weapons and forces should be maintained when there is no military rationale for so doing. At the same time, if cuts are Treasury-led, we are in serious danger of abandoning capabilities when there has been no agreement to drop the role for which that capability exists.
The confusion surrounding Navy options for change is further illustrated by the marked contrast between planned cuts of between 20 and 40 per cent. in surface ships and submarines and the apparent immunity of maritime air forces from any significant reductions. Last year, a 15 per cent. cut in the Nimrod anti-submarine force was talked about. We are now told that only three of the 34 aircraft will be retired—barely 9 per cent. Last year, the Royal Aeronautical Society journal, Aerospace Magazine, reported that at least two RAF Nimrods had suffered so much salt water corrosion that the cost of repairing them was probably riot affordable. Is that small reduction in the Nimrod fleet simply a measure that would have been implemented irrespective of "Options for Change"?
Ship ordering is another hardy perennial in any defence debate, and I refer now to orders for frigates. Warship yards continue to feel deep uncertainty about the future of type 23 orders. Will the Minister comment on the timing, financing, scale, and international work-shares of the proposed Anglo-French anti-air destroyer that is to replace the type 42? I understand that yards have been invited to tender for three more type 23 frigates, but that the Government have not yet decided whether to order them. That creates uncertainty in the yards where those ships would be built. I hope that over the next two days the Minister will say whether the invitation to tender will turn into orders. I am glad to see the Secretary of State back in his place, because he will fully understand what it means to the workers in those yards not to know whether those orders will materialise.
We still do not know what is to replace Fearless and Intrepid. It is time that the Government made an announcement. There is no clear timetable for the refitting and return of Illustrious, and a cloud still hangs over the future of HMS Endurance. Much of the Government's talk about competitive tendering is just hot air. Recently, I suggest, Ministry of Defence officials were convincing the management at Devonport that they were in with a chance of competing for Trident refits when hundreds of millions of pounds are already committed to building up Rosyth for precisely that purpose. Recently I have been to Rosyth to see the big hole in the ground which is where the Trident submarines will be refitted.
We need to inject greater stability into warship ordering. With the declining number of yards, it makes sense to accept the argument for specialisation. Pretending that all yards can do all kinds of work is a recipe for unprotected investment and for keeping workers and management in a state of permanent uncertainty.
Everyone knows and accepts that there will be fewer ship orders. We need more vision in the design of some of our ships to take account of the fact that presence missions are likely to be more important than the ability to fight and survive a nuclear war at sea.
In the case of HMS Endurance—we have named it HMS Endurance II as a code—we should be considering not merely the security needs of the south Atlantic but a wide range of environmental protection tasks to which HMS Endurance or its replacement could contribute, with more emphasis on co-operation with other countries and with a wide variety of non-governmental research interests. The work already done with the British Antarctic Survey is excellent, but a new ship to replace HMS Endurance would be a positive commitment by Britain to the protection and study of the world's last great wilderness.
Again I hope that there will be a statement about HMS Endurance. I remember the hon. Member for East Hampshire asking me whether I would favour ordering a replacement for HMS Endurance, and I said categorically that there should be a replacement. I only hope that at some time during this two-day debate replies will be given. It is all right for the Secretary of State to make petty jokes —not very funny jokes—when workers are dependent on orders from the Ministry of Defence. Many of our shipyards are in areas of high unemployment. Instead of mumbling on and making petty and trivial jokes, it is about time that the Government told us that there will be orders for type 23 frigates and whether HMS Endurance is to be replaced. What about the other two ships that I mentioned?

Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyes: I am following time constraints determined by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement.

Mr. Franks: What about Trident?

Mr. Boyes: The Under-Secretary asked for a certain amount of time to wind up and I promised to give him that time. I have always kept my word whenever we have offered time to each other in the House.
Inevitably there have to be reductions in all our services because of changing global circumstances, especially following the Bush-Gorbachev initiative. However, if Opposition Members have to ask young men to fight for us—as a father and a grandfather I hope that that will never arise—we should supply our soldiers with weapon systems which are as good as, and preferably superior to, the weapons of our enemy. That at least we owe them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): As we expected, there has been a wide range of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members during the first day of this debate. I think that we can agree that we have listened to some heartfelt and sincere arguments today. I have shortened my speech to allow more hon. Members to take part but I shall ensure that answers, where needed, are provided, even though I cannot answer myself in the short time remaining. However before answering certain questions, in the short time available I wish to mention three issues.
First, given the many letters that I receive on the subject, I certainly understand the worries about low flying. I know that matters of flight safety are of great concern to many hon. Members. We share that concern, and, for the aircrews, safety is of paramount importance: they, after all, have the most to lose. At the same time, our aircrews must have the necessary training. Regrettably, every year sees a number of major accidents involving military aircraft. In some cases, tragically, aircrew members are killed. This year there was a particularly distressing mid-air collision over Carno in central Wales, in which a civilian pilot also died.
I stress that all such accidents are thoroughly investigated to establish the causes. Following the collision at Carno which involved both a civil and a military aircraft, the air accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport is also conducting an investigation. We are determined to learn any lessons that can be learnt in order to minimise the risk of recurrence. No accident level is acceptable to the armed forces, and we continually strive to make military flying as safe as possible.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No; I have a lot to cover.
I stress, however—I know that there is a wide understanding of this—that such training is essential if we are to have an effective and modern Royal Air Force. The Secretary of State rightly welcomed a more peaceful world, but recent events have shown how tenuous that peace can be.
Rightly, the House and the public have paid great tribute to the skill and sheer courage of the RAF aircrews who flew low in the Gulf, and helped us to win that early and vital air dominance. They could not have done that without rigorous training. However, we are also very conscious of the environmental impact of that training in the United Kingdom.
On our small and crowded island, aircraft flying fast at low level are bound to upset some people. We therefore limit the amount of low flying to an absolute minimum, based on a rigorous assessment of what is specifically needed to build and maintain the skills required of our aircrew. Low flying is permitted only when it meets that training need, and there are strict regulations to minimise any nuisance caused. I give my pledge that we will continue to allow only the minimum low flying that is also compatible with keeping the quality of defence that we must have.
I have just reviewed the position, taking into account the reductions and changes that will flow from our plans in "Britain's Defence for the 90s", and the reductions proposed in United States Air Force aircraft based in this country. Although our planning continues, I can tell the House that we expect to cut the amount of jet low flying in this country by about 30 per cent.—nearly one third —over the next three years. That will be partly offset by some increases in other forms of flying, reflecting the introduction of the quieter non-jet Tucano for basic training, and changes being considered in the deployment of Army helicopters. But the total amount of low flying, in particular by the noisiest aircraft, will fall. I know that that news will be welcome to the House. Wherever possible, we

will use simulators and train abroad. I am grateful to the United States and Canada for the facilities that they provide.
Let me also thank the House and the public for their tolerance and understanding of our low flying. Without that training, we certainly could not have a fully effective air force. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is not particularly interested in an effective air force; the truth is, however, that without low flying we could not have one. Let me emphasise that, over the coming year, we shall conduct our low flying in as considerate and sensible a way as possible.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity tomorrow.
The fate of the ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, has been a matter of great concern to many hon. Members, as it has been to the Ministry of Defence. HMS Endurance is 35 years old. It was expected that she would be able to operate as an ice patrol ship until the mid-1990s. However, she was damaged by an iceberg in the south Atlantic in 1989. Following that collision and the higher safety standards that now exist for ships that operate in ice, the Ministry of Defence has been undertaking an annual survey of the ship. The latest survey and new scientific evidence has revealed a risk of hull failure in Antarctic conditions. The Secretary of State for Defence has therefore been advised that it is not safe to deploy her in very cold temperatures, or in areas where ice might be present. HMS Endurance will therefore be decommis-sioned.
No suitable Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship was available to fulfil HMS Endurance's role this winter. After a full market survey of the vessels available, MV Polar Circle was found to be the most capable replacement. I am happy to be able to announce to the House today that we have chartered this Norwegian icebreaker, MV Polar Circle, which will sail to the south Atlantic this winter to carry out the tasks of HMS Endurance. I know that Opposition Members are not happy about that. They would prefer to see us remove ourselves entirely from our global responsibilities. MV Polar Circle will set sail at the end of November flying the ——

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement of the replacement of the present vessel with a modern vessel is most welcome news to the House and to the Falkland islanders. However, can he tell us whether he contemplates providing a longer term replacement vessel, and is he aware that it is the desire of many Falkland islanders that that vessel should be renamed HMS Endurance to continue a long-standing naval tradition?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can advise him that the requirement for a longer-term replacement for HMS Endurance is being considered separately. No decision has yet been taken but the Government are committed to maintaining the programme previously carried out by HMS Endurance.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the lease of MV Polar Circle be for only seven months? How much would it cost if the ship were to be purchased rather than leased?

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would know that HMS Endurance served in the southern seas for only certain months of the year. MV Polar Circle will carry out the programme that HMS Endurance was to have carried out.
MV Polar Circle will set sail at the end of November flying the white ensign and carrying a Royal Navy crew. She will be taken into commission with the Royal Navy for the period of her charter. She will undertake tasks in support of the British Antarctic Survey and will also carry out hydrographic survey and meteorological work. We are confident that she will be able to meet HMS Endurance's commitments this winter. I hope that this news will be welcome to right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Amery: What those of us who, under Lord Shackleton's leadership, have been advocating is a long-term commitment to a British presence not just in the Falklands but in the Antarctic area. I did not catch whether the Minister committed us to that. I hope that he did.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand my right hon. Friend's commitment to that but, as I said, the Government are committed to maintaining the programmes previously carried out by HMS Endurance.
The third issue that I should like to raise is the response of the Ministry of Defence to the citizens charter. Unlike other Departments, the Ministry of Defence does not provide a service direct to the public. One understands from the reaction of Labour Members that the Labour party has no commitment to a citizens charter. It wishes to serve not the public but only the unions.
Our charter's aim is to improve quality and standards, which is central to everything that we are trying to do in defence. Our principal response to the charter will be to continue to provide a formidable defence of our country. Indeed, in terms of quality, our armed forces showed in the Gulf that they are second to none.
But because of the size and nature of our defence we come into direct contact with the public in a number of ways. Where this happens, we shall strive to be good citizens and we are taking several initiatives to achieve that. Our relationship with the environment gives us such scope. The public are rightly entitled to expect that we should conserve and care for that natural environment. Our charter is to do so and to give a lead on environmental matters.
In the past year, we have produced an environment manual—the first of its kind in Government—that contains practical advice on a wide range of environmental issues, including the prevention and control of pollution, the minimisation of waste, energy efficiency, recycling and compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The manual is becoming a working document on environmental practice in the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's speech has nothing to do with the debate that the rest of us have sat through for four hours. We have had 10 minutes on low flying and 10 minutes on the citizens charter. Will the Minister address himself to the subject of tonight's debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member spent all year begging us not to go to the Gulf. He should at least show some concern for the environment.
Among our actions to protect the environment are measures to control the use of energy. We have introduced several recycling schemes. We aim to fit garbage and sewage processing equipment to all royal naval vessels in this decade. We are considering how we might help the scientific community by collecting environmental data in the course of military activities. These and other actions are evidence of our commitment.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No. I have many points to answer. The hon. Gentleman was not present for the whole debate.
All those measures to protect the environment need a structure that goes deep within the Ministry of Defence so that care for the environment becomes part of our way of life. We have therefore set up a network of environmental committees to cover every unit, both military and civilian, throughout the Ministry of Defence. These committees will closely consider how their units can enhance their effect on the environment. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. This is a debate on the defence estimates; it covers a wide range of matters.

Mr. Carlisle: By setting up those committees, our wish to nurture the environment will become a living reality within the Ministry of Defence. [Interruption.] It might help if I tell Opposition Members that this is a two-day debate and that there is scope to cover a range of Ministry of Defence activities. If they feel that protecting the environment or low flying are not important parts of the Ministry of Defence, they should think again. Letters and messages from the public show that they are.
We continue to work hard to conserve the defence estate, which has some of the finest natural habitats in the United Kingdom, including more than 200 sites of special scientific interest. We have a specialist conservation unit, a team of foresters and other estate management staff and a network of unpaid conservation officers across the country.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the restoration with Government funds of Fort George, one of the greatest military environments that exists, was a marvellous achievement. Why then is it necessary to abolish by amalgamation the regiments that occupy it and that have already been amalgamated during the past 30 years?

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will reply tomorrow to those Scottish points.
We shall shortly issue to members of the public a booklet to explain how they can gain access to the defence estate.
This brief summary of some of the environmental achievements of the Ministry of Defence offers a taste of what we in the Ministry are doing to protect the environment. As our new environment committees and manual become part of our way of life, so will our actions ensure that we do everything possible to protect the environment for future generations. We believe that we


need to attain high standards. We are conscious of the fact that we can still do better, and we have pledged to strive to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described in his opening speech the way in which we are determined to secure our defences in the coming decade. He described the way in which our measures to make the armed forces smaller but better are closely but cautiously attuned to world events, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) pointed out. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State left us in no doubt that the Conservative Government will keep our defences as strong as they need to be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked whether we could fight after the changes in campaigns such as the Falklands and the Gulf. The answer is yes. As my right hon. Friend will remember, in the Falklands our troops were led primarily by the marines and the paras, which are untouched by the changes. Ten thousand soldiers landed in the Falklands. There were 33,000 soldiers sent to the Gulf. In future, the rapid reaction corps will be able to respond to such emergencies and we will have the ships to support them.
We hoped that the Opposition would clarify for us what their defence policy is, but the debate has done nothing to disperse the fog within which Labour's defence policy hides so timidly. Labour hopes, it says, to form a Government, but it will not state its defence policies. We heard a lot of misinformed bluster from the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), but no policy. I sympathise with him because he has nothing to make a speech about.
Why does Labour dare not let us know what it stands for in defence? There can be only one reason: Labour is terrified of the public reaction to that reality. Why else, for example, should Labour be so shifty about the nuclear deterrent? We have stated, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed, that we will retain a nuclear deterrent so long as other countries have nuclear weapons. Will Labour? Its answer is drowned by confusion.

Mr. Boyes: Labour has not shifted position.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position that Labour has not shifted its position. Is the Labour party still unilateral? We wish that it would tell us. All we know is that the stark reality of Labour's commitment to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament would lead remorselessly to one-sided disarmament.
We can be certain of one other matter, too. Under Labour, defence spending would be slashed. The Labour conference voted for that, and that is what Labour would do. We could say goodbye to Yarrow, Swan Hunter and Barrow-in-Furness. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that Labour would build no more SSNs—he had no sympathy for them. That would cast doom over Barrow-in-Furness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) noted. After the cancellation of orders——

Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No.
After the cancellation of orders worth billions of pounds, a host of factories would close throughout the land under the Labour party's defence cuts. The cuts would truly rip the heart out of the country's defence.
The Opposition have asked about the tenders for frigates. We are evaluating the tenders and we hope to order as soon as possible. That depends, of course, upon the quality of the tenders.
The public know who they can trust on defence. No amount of deception by the Labour party will convince anyone that the party's heart is in defence. In this debate the Opposition have failed to come up with any satisfactory policy. When challenged they have twisted and turned. They will not give us an answer on the nuclear deterrent. They will not say how much they would spend on conventional weapons. The Labour party conference voted for cuts amounting to £6 billion. The Opposition are in entire confusion, and for a true defence of our country the public must turn to this Government and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Army Regiments

Mr. Speaker: Before I call hon. Members to present their petitions, I remind them of the need to conclude their presentations by putting the petitions in the bag behind the Chair.

Sir Hector Monro: I am pleased to present to this honourable House a petition from the people of Scotland. The boxes that are being carried into the Chamber are only a small example of the total number, which contain no fewer than 800,000 signatures that have been collected in recent weeks in Scotland.
The petition is against the amalgamation of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders, and against the loss of the second battalion of the Scots Guards. General Sir John MacMillan and his team collected these signatures over a short period, which shows the strength of feeling in Scotland. We in Scotland believe that the world is too uncertain for such drastic cuts and that the recruitment and retention by the fine regiments to which I have referred justifies their remaining unamalga-mated. The petition says:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House may vote against these misguided reductions which strike at the heart of Scotland.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
That is signed by my constituent, Mr. Thorburn of Rosemount crescent. Annan. I beg to present the petition.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I rise to join the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in presenting the petition signed by 800,000 Scots to protest against the amalgamation of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders.
This is one of the largest petitions raised in recent years in Scotland. I cannot recall such strong feeling on any one subject except, perhaps, the poll tax in Scotland. I remind the Government of what that led to in due course.
It is clear that the Government's decision is not based on appropriate defence considerations. It does not pay sufficient attention to the quality of the regiments that are concerned. I have great pleasure in personally presenting the petition, which is signed by the elected members of East Lothian district council, led by the leader of the council, Councillor George Wanlace. I call upon the House to vote against the misguided reductions, which strike at the heart of Scotland.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I presented a petition one Friday morning and started to make a speech you quickly pulled me up.

Mr. Bob Cryer: A direct challenge. Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need help. Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am most honoured to add my name and that of my party to the names of those presenting petitions tonight on behalf of the Keep Our

Scottish Battalions campaign. Included in the boxes of signatures are many collected in my own constituency— almost 19,000. The signatures were collected under the auspices of the national campaign, the local district council, our local newspapers, local business and many organisations, to all of which we are much indebted for demonstrating the strength of opinion in my area, which I believe is reflected throughout Scotland.
In my own constituency, the Queen's Own Highlanders and Gordon Highlanders both have long and excellent traditions of recruitment, retention and service. We are justly proud of our traditions and of our record, not least recently in the Gulf war, during which we lost young men in a so-called friendly fire incident. I echo and endorse the sentiments of my constituents and urge the Government to think again on this matter.
As other hon. Members have explained, the petition ends:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Your Honourable House may vote against these misguided reductions which strike at the heart of Scotland.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to add my voice to those already raised in support of the petition presented by the Keep Our Scottish Battalions campaign. It is right that the House should remember that, for good and onerous reasons, the professionals in the military are not in a position to speak for themselves. The petition speaks for them very effectively.
I am honoured and proud that so many of the signatures were collected in the central Borders region, where the King's Own Scottish Borderers are considered to be part of the local way of life. A lot of areas would be proud to have anything approaching the amount of local support for their local infantry battalion that our battalion enjoys.
I was impressed when one of my constituents wrote to me reminding me of the verse by Rudyard Kipling——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is going a bit far, given that the hon. Gentleman is presenting a petition.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is only four lines, Mr. Speaker:
It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' `Chuck him out, the
brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot.
My constituents are anxious that the House should
vote against these misguided reductions which strike at the heart of Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am delighted to add my support to those who have have already spoken and to the thousands of my constituents who have signed the petition on behalf of the Scottish battalions. As the Member of Parliament representing Gordon, I am especially proud of the fact that 240,000 signatures have been secured in support of the continuation of the independence of the Gordon Highlanders. I can confirm that the strength of the support for that regiment is strong throughout Scotland and especially throughout the north-east of Scotland.
I believe that the Government's decisions are misguided. My constituents ask that they reverse them and that the House should vote against them. The petition ends:
And your Petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As I served with the Royal Military Police, although at a very humble level, during my national service, I regard it as a pleasure and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who urged me to present it to the House to support the campaign against the appalling measures against those fine and honourable Scottish regiments. I need only say that the petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House may vote against these misguided reductions which strike at the heart of Scotland.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am honoured to present the humble petition of the people of Cheshire in support of the 22nd (Cheshire) regiment. The petition
sheweth that the cuts in the Infantry proposed by Her Majesty's Government are too severe in the light of the infantry's continuing commitments and in the present world situation and that in this context it is not sensible to amalgamate the Cheshire and Staffordshire Regiments which are two of the best recruited regiments in the British Army.
More than 100,000 people from Cheshire have signed the petition—many of them from the constituencies of Warrington, Macclesfield and Congleton. The petition continues:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House may vote against those ill considered defence cuts so that the amalgamation of the 22nd (Cheshire) regiment with the Staffordshire Regiment may be re-considered and reversed.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I have the honour to present a petition which has been signed by nearly 100,000 people in Staffordshire and the west midlands. The petition objects to the amalgamation of the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments. My constituents and people throughout Staffordshire have enormous pride in the Staffordshire Regiment and its traditions. They are particularly proud of the way in which the regiment served in the Gulf this year. They believe that the present world situation is too uncertain for the infantry to be reduced so significantly and they also believe that the Staffordshire Regiment's proud traditions and magnificent reputation should justify a reprieve and that it should continue to play an individual part in the honourable history of the British Army.
The petitioners note the regiment's outstanding record and the fact that it is very well recruited. People throughout Staffordshire and the west midlands beg our honourable House to take note of their petition:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will not give support to this proposed amalgamation which is unreasonable and ill-judged.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Bruce George: It is a great honour for me on behalf of hon. Members in Staffordshire and the west midlands to present a petition which has been signed by 100,000 people on behalf of the Staffordshire Regiment. The explanations were provided in our debate this evening, particularly by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), so I will not repeat them. However, the Staffordshire Regiment has played an enormous role in the military social life of our area and it should not be amalgamated with an equally worthy regiment—the Cheshire Regiment. Both regiments are free standing and they should be allowed to continue to serve their regions and the country as they have done so successfully in the past, most recently in the Gulf. The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will not give support to this proposed amalgamation which is unreasonable and ill-judged.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. William Cash: I have the honour to present a humble petition from the supporters of the Save our Staffords campaign in my constituency. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what I said in the debate except to add that the Government's proposal to amalgamate the Staffordshire Regiment with the Cheshire Regiment is unacceptable and unreasonable.
The petitioners consider that the present world situation is too uncertain for the infantry to be reduced so significantly. They note the outstanding service record of the Staffordshire Regiment which was most recently demonstrated in the Gulf. They note that the Staffordshire Regiment is well recruited in Staffordshire and has performed remarkable service for many years. The petition adds:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will not give support to this proposed amalgamation which is both unreasonable and ill-judged.

To lie upon the Table.

Shops Act 1950

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. John Marshall: A year ago, on the first day back after the summer recess, I had the honour to secure an Adjournment debate. I do not know whether it is historic to secure a debate on the same day two years running, but next year I shall try to secure my hat trick.
During the current Session I have introduced two Bills on Sunday trading. The reasons I speak again are fourfold. First, I wish to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the issue will not just go away. There ha. s been a temporary reprieve while the matter has been referred to the European Court. Prosecutions have ceased because local authorities are frightened to bring injunctions, and there is therefore not the public uproar that there would be if the law were to be widely enforced. There is, however, the risk of mayhem in the weeks approaching Christmas. We will have a law which is unenforceable and which will suffer from widespread flouting, and that can only bring the rule of law itself into disrepute.
My third reason for speaking is that the Robert George case, which was financed by the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign, has actually strengthened the case for reform. It has certainly not undermined it, because Robert George was given by the courts the right not to work on Sunday. If he should be given that right by the courts, it is equally right that those who seek to work on a Sunday should be free to do so. My fourth reason is to give my right hon. Friend the Minister an opportunity to report on her discussions with various vested interests.
The Shops Act 1950 was designed for a quite different society. In the 1950s, we lived with rationing and shortages, whereas today we live in an era of plenty. In 1950, the vast majority of mothers did not go out to work, but today three out of four married women work. I should like to pay tribute to the contribution that they make to our country. Without their contribution, our commerce, social services and hospitals would collapse almost overnight.
In the 1950s, no one had heard of video shops, DIY centres or garden centres. Of course, since 1950 there has been a major change in the way in which people regard Sunday observance. In 1950, there was no such thing as Sunday sport. Today, the British climate is such that Wimbledon finals nearly always occur on a Sunday rather than a Saturday. In 1950, it was impossible to see Compton or Edrich score a century on a Sunday, but today, other than Test matches, the Sunday league games are the best-attended cricket matches that one will see at Lord's or the Oval. In 1950, it was impossible to go to Highbury or White Hart Lane to see a Football Association or Football League game on Sundays. Today such matches are well attended. Of course, in 1950 one could not go to a theatre on a Sunday because that activity was banned as well.
There have been dramatic changes in society's attitude, and indeed in the level of religious observance. Only the other day we saw figures showing the dramatic decline in the number of people who went to church in the 1980s.
That was not due to the fact that a number of shops were open legally or illegally on a Sunday. It reflected more on the leadership of Lord Runcie.
The law is still littered with anomalies. It is possible to get a gin and tonic on a Sunday, but it is impossible to buy tea bags. It is possible to buy a fresh chicken on a Sunday, but it is impossible to buy a fresh egg. That must be the first occasion in the history of this country when the chicken comes before the egg. It is possible to buy a cigarette lighter, but not a fire lighter, which gives a new definition of the words "holy smoke". It is possible to have a fish lunch at Wheeler's, but it is impossible to go to a fish and chip shop to buy that most delectable British dish. It is perfectly possible to go to the cinema, but it is illegal to rent a video. It is possible to attend great sporting occasions at places such as Wimbledon, Highbury, Wembley and Lord's, but it is impossible for a shopkeeper to sell a video of past sporting successes of this country. It is impossible for a shop to sell a tie commemorating when Wales won at rugby instead of losing to Western Samoa.
The law is so riddled with anomalies that it is regularly broken. Even, I am afraid to say, the Church breaks the law. For example, the souvenir shop at Coventry cathedral is open on a Sunday, selling souvenirs and indulging in trade. A Church of England school in my constituency regularly lets out its premises commercially on a Sunday. My constituents ask me why, if it is right for a Church of England school to let out its premises commercially, it is wrong for non-Christians to trade commercially on a Sunday.
The recent court case, as a result of which our law is again being considered in Europe, will result in mayhem over Christmas. In the past at Christmas, local authorities have used injunctions to enforce the law. As they will be reluctant to do that this year, I believe that many stores will open at Christmas for the first time this year.
This issue is basically a question of individual freedom. It relates to the right of individuals to shop or not to shop on a Sunday; to the right of tradesmen to indulge or not to indulge in trade on a Sunday; and to the right of individuals to work or not to work on a Sunday. I accept that the corollary to providing the right to work on a Sunday must be also to provide the right not to work on a Sunday. That is why in the Bill that I introduced earlier this Session I provided the right to conscientious objection to Sunday working. That right was confirmed in the Robert George case.
If any Opposition Member had been present for this debate, I should have liked to ask whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who has said that he is not a root-and-branch opponent of Sunday trading, would find the right of conscientious objection sufficient to remove the objections that he and several other Labour Members have expressed about Sunday trading. All of those who have a view on this issue will find it strange that no Opposition Members are present to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. I do not believe that providing a right of conscientious objection to working on a Sunday would kill Sunday trading. As I understand it from Do It All, Sunday working is so popular that the right to work on a Sunday has to be rostered. There is a queue of people who want to work on a Sunday, but they are prevented from doing so.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to the European draft directive on hours of work. I believe that the restrictions in the draft directive are wrong. The reason


behind it is simple. The German Government do not like the impact of the restrictions which they themselves have imposed and which discourage firms from locating in the Federal Republic. Those firms are more willing to locate in the United Kingdom. But why should restrictions be imposed elsewhere in the Community to please the protectionists in the Federal Republic of Germany? Did Britain join the European Community to have such restrictions placed on British enterprise? Would it not be an abuse of the majority voting procedures of the Single European Act for this issue to be determined by majority voting? The Single European Act was designed to facilitate trade, not to place a brake on enterprise. The draft directive can only destroy jobs in this country and throughout the Community. I hope that the Government will continue to wage war on that proposal.
Every public opinion poll on this matter has shown a vast majority in favour of changing the law on Sunday trading. In every poll since 1988, more than 60 per cent. of those questioned have favoured changing the law. In the poll of polls— phrase to which we shall become accustomed in the next few months—64 per cent. of people favoured change, while 32 per cent. supported the status quo. That means that a ratio of 2:1 is in favour of change.
My right hon. Friend is holding consultations with a number of organisations. I remind her that some are not representative of public opinion, but only of their own prejudices. I would welcome a statement this evening about the progress of those consultations, and especially about the time scale for completing them. It is high time that a target date for their conclusion was set.
There are, of course those who scaremonger. They suggest that if the law were changed, suddenly all shops would open on a Sunday. But Scottish experience is a good guide to what would happen. The Shops Act 1950 does not apply to Scotland. What has happened? The vast majority of shops do not open on a Sunday. Most shops never open on a Sunday. Some, such as toy shops, open on a Sunday in the week before Christmas. Others, such as convenience stores, DIY centres, video shops and supermarkets, open every Sunday, but only because there is a demand. If there was not a demand, they would not open. They respond to that demand.
However, church attendance in Scotland is higher than in England. So one cannot look to the Shops Act to provide protection for the Church. I believe that the churches have nothing to fear from Sunday trading. One of the most interesting sights that I saw during the recess was in Poland where the churches were full on a Sunday. There was standing room only. Where were the local markets? They were outside the churches because people knew that that was the best place to be when the service ended. So there is no reason why we cannot have full churches and people shopping on a Sunday.
There are those who look to the law to keep Sunday special, but there is much greater virtue in not yielding to temptation than in going to church simply because there is nothing better to do. Indeed, one of the ironies in my constituency is that the synagogues are full on Saturday despite the fact that there are a lot of shops to which the congregation could go. Yet I am afraid that to describe the church which I attended yesterday as half full would be slightly euphemistic.
There are those who say that we cannot change the law because of the impact that it would have on the family. But is it not part of family life to watch a video at home rather than go to a cinema? The advocates of no change say that it is better for the family to go out to a smoky cinema than to stay in the comfort of their own home. Is it not part of family life to buy plants for the garden and paint and paper to decorate the home? Is it not part of family life in the run-up to Christmas to go to the local toy shop to buy presents for the children? These latter-day Calvinists deny such pleasures to young children and deny the families of this country things which are properly part of family life. They forget that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
A law that is frequently broken, rarely enforced, riddled with anomalies and out of touch with public opinion does only one thing: it brings the rule of law into disrepute. It needs to be changed. Over a century ago Lord Randolph Churchill advised the Conservative party to trust the people. If we repeal the Shops Act and trust the people we will be very wise indeed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I begin by offering my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) my congratulations. When I realised that I was to have the pleasure of responding to the debate this evening, I did not realise that he was making a practice of returning from the long recess in the summer to obtain the first of the Adjournment debates. I believe that this is the second time of asking. I trust that the banns will be called properly next year when he gets the third time of asking.
My hon. Friend spoke with some eloquence on the position under the Shops Act 1950 and on Sunday trading in general. It would be foolish of me not to agree that at present there is no doubt that the position on Sunday trading is, to say the least of it, in some disarray. It is a matter of no disagreement that the present law is confusing, anomalous and inconsistent. As my hon. Friend said, it was drawn up 30 or 40 years ago, so it is not surprising that things have changed considerably, as he so eloquently described.
However, at one point in his dissertation my hon. Friend asked about the enforcement of the law. It is an important point which should be made clear at this stage. My hon. Friend foreshadowed what I suspect is quite likely to happen. Several shops will be tempted to open in the run-up to the Christmas period. The position has been set out clearly on several occasions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He takes the view that Parliament has given local authorities the primary responsibility for enforcing the provisions on Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950 and that they still have adequate powers to enforce the Act, whether by way of prosecution or civil action in which an injunction is sought.
The decisions of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords earlier this year have given rise to considerable controversy and, as my hon. Friend knows, it has been suggested that the Act can no longer be enforced as a result of those decisions. My right hon. and learned Friend disagrees. He believes that, when the cases are properly analysed, it can be seen that the decisions of the courts do not affect either the responsibility of local authorities for


enforcing the Act or their powers. Therefore, the law remains clear. However, that does not necessarily mean that local authorities will act in accordance with the law in all cases.
My hon. Friend will know that some time ago the Auld committee undertook a thorough review of the issues before presenting its report in 1984. When it considered all the options it came to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend: that there was no satisfactory solution short of total deregulation of shop opening hours. My hon. Friend will be aware that in 1986, in accordance with the findings of the Auld committee, the Government introduced proposals to deregulate Sunday trading. That did not meet with the agreement of the House and since then the House has taken the view that it would not be wise to introduce further proposals unless there was certainty that they were workable and enforceable and were supported by the vast majority of Members of this House.
As my hon. Friend said, it is interesting that from most recent polls, studies and media-gathered information a considerable majority appears to be in favour of deregulation. I ponder on that from time to time. However, only recently I was shown a poll of Members of this House which came out more closely to 50:50, with 50 per cent. in favour of total deregulation and the other 50 per cent. not in favour of that at all but more closely aligned to those who would like the law more strictly enforced than it is today.
I know of the case of Mr. George which my hon. Friend mentioned. Contrary to press reports, Sunday working was not the central issue in his case. The crux of the matter was the overall length and organisation of working hours during a peak season and the impact on the employee with regard to his particular family circumstances. The tribunal accepted that it was undesirable for employees to be prevented from taking time off with their family, although other issues were involved. In this case, Sunday was the only day when that was possible and, obviously. that would not necessarily apply in all cases. There may be differences.
It is important also to dwell for a moment on the central issue of how employees may or may not view opportunities for employment on Sunday. I agree with my hon. Friend that many people work on Sunday—those who man essential services, those who work consistently, thank goodness, in our hospitals, our fire services, our police forces and our prison services. That is just the beginning of the list. There are others who work, not necessarily in essential services, and who, over the years, have grown to be part of the web of British life on a Sunday. They provide help to those who are unable always to go shopping on weekdays and Saturdays. They are small corner shops. We all acknowledge that they provide an important service, especially for the elderly and those less able to get to the larger stores during the week. However, that does not suggest that I condone anything that is contrary to current law. I simply point out that the position has changed over the years, and my hon. Friend was right to point that out.
I have held discussions with a large number of different groups on the matter of Sunday trading. One of the

common threads throughout those discussions has been the necessity to consider the protection of employees. They would have to be protected from being obliged by their employers to work on Sundays against their wishes, and from incurring any penalty for not doing so. There is also great concern that there should be proper reward for working on a Sunday.
The Government generally take the view that matters of pay and hours of work are better left to negotiation between employers and employees or their representatives, and that they should certainly not be prescribed in legislation or in codes of practice provided for in statute. Employees aggrieved by the actions of their employers may, of course, seek redress through the courts or at an industrial tribunal.
The Government have recognised the importance of personal conscience, and included a measure of protection for existing shop workers against being made to work on Sundays in the defeated Shops Bill. The points that my hon. Friend made in his speech were also highlighted by the groups, and I readily acknowledge the strength of feeling about this aspect of the issue.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the European Commission's draft directive on working time, which is currently going through a process of consultation and negotiation in the European Community. The latest text of the draft directive contains a provison that the weekly rest period that it seeks to establish should in principle include Sunday, subject to a derogation power. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that those questions are a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, it is my understanding—and I have been kept in close contact with all that has been happening on this issue—that the United Kingdom has resisted the inclusion in the directive of any reference to Sunday as the preferred rest day, even in principle. We have argued, and we continue to believe, that there is no justification on health and safety grounds—the basis on which the directive was conceived—for choosing one rest day rather than another.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Sunday trading. I know that he is anxious that I give him some idea of when my consultations will reach a conclusion. I am about two thirds of the way through them. A remarkable number of people have asked for an opportunity to express a view, and in due courtesy to them I must continue with my consultations. I hope that by the end of the autumn I will have seen as many as possible of those who wish to discuss their points with me. I shall try to resist a number who wish to come a second time. Following that, I shall draw some ends and threads together in an attempt to reach a conclusion. A few points have had a common connection in the various representations, but there are still a number of issues about which there are considerable differences. I hope that as time passes we can narrow the gap. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.